BIBLE  LEAGUE,  CREDO  SERIES,  No. 


Collapse  of  Evolution 


BY 

Professor  L.  T.  Townsend,  D.D.,  S.T.l).,  M.V.I. 
Author  of  “Credo,”  “God-Man,”  “  P'ate 
OF  Republics,”  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 


Delivered  under  the  auspices  of  the  American  Bible 
League,  in  Boston,  December,  1904. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

NATIONAL  MAGAZINE  COMPANY,  BOSTON,  MASS. 
AND  AMERICAN  BIBLE  LEAGUE 

39  BIBLE  HOUSE,  NEW  YORK 


Copyright,  1905, 
By  L.  T.  Townsend. 


TRINTED  BY 

gtrakelgsn  ^ress 

BOSTON,  MASS, 


DEDICATION 

TO 

mmm  pbillips  fHall 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  BIBLE  LEAGUE^ 
WHOSE  BRAIN,  HEART  AND  WEALTH  ARE  CON¬ 
SECRATED  TO  GOD  AND  ARE  BEING  USED  FOR 
THE  PROMOTION  OF  BIBLE  CHRISTIANITY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2020  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/collapseofevolutOOtown 


CONTENTS 


I. 

INTRODUCTORY 

1.  Hypothesis  of  Evolution  Broadly  Applied  .....  7 

2.  Definitions  ..........  8 

History  and  Triumphs  of  Evolution  ......  9 

4.  Naturalists  and  Supernaturai.ists  . . 9 

5.  Indictment  ...........  10 

II. 


LIFE  GERMS  AND  NATURALISTIC  EVOLUTION 

1.  Life  Germs  said  to  be  a  Product  of  Nature  .  .  .  .  ii 

2.  Life  Germs  as  yet  Unaccounted  for  by  Naturalism  ...  12 

III. 

EVOLUTION,  THEISTIC  AND  NATURALISTIC;  STUDIES  IN 


GEOLOGY 

1.  No  Law  of  Universal  Improvement  ......  15 

(1)  Beginnings  and  Endings  ........  16 

(2)  Multitudes  of  Species^  Flora  and  Fauna,  show  no  Develop¬ 

ment  when  Compared  with  their  Earliest  Types  .  .  16 

(3)  Man  viewed  Biologically  shows  no  Improvement  .  .  18 

(4)  Fixedness,  Disappearances,  Improvements  and  Reversions  .  20 

2.  No  Transmutation  of  Species  by  Natural  or  Artificial 

Processe.s . 21 

(1)  Horse  Pedigree  ..........  21 

(2)  Java  Skeleton  ..........  23 


IV. 

EVOLUTION,  THEISTIC  AND  NATURALISTIC;  STUDIES  IN  BIOL¬ 
OGY,  EMBRYOLOGY  AND  COMPARATIVE  ANATOMY 


1.  Development  of  the  Human  Body  ......  25  ^ 

2.  Development  of  the  Human  Hand  and  Eye  .  .  .  .  .  26 

3.  Rudimentary  or  Useless  Members  ......  27 

4.  Metamorphosis  ..........  27 

5.  Crossing  of  Species  .........  27 

6.  Variation  of  Species  .........  28 


7.  Classification  of  Species . 28 

8.  Everything  after  its  Kind;  Studies  in  the  Floral  Kingdom  29 

9.  Everything  after  its  Kind  ;  Studies  in  the  Animal  Kingdom  30 

10.  Wriggling . .  .  32 

(1)  The  Whale  Disposed  of . 32 

(2)  Demand  for  Missing  Links  pronounced  Unreasonable  .  32 

(3)  Explanation  of  how  Links  Become  Missing  ....  34 

(4)  Evolution  of  Man  . .  c  35 

V. 


EMERGENCE  OF  HUMANITY  FROM  ITS  BRUTE  BEGINNINGS 

1.  Disclosures  of  Archaeology  and  History . 36 

2.  Decadence  among  Mankind  ........  38 

3.  Philology^  Comparative  Religion  and  Codes  of  Ethics  .  .  38 

VI. 

THE  AGE  OF  HUMANITY 

1.  Former  Theories  Abandoned . .  40 

2.  Man's  Appearance  and  the  Ice  Age  ......  41 

3.  Scientific  Mixup . .  43 

VII. 

SCHOLARS  AND  EVOLUTION 

1.  All  Scholars  said  to  be  Evolutionists . 45 

2.  Scholarship  and  Narrowness  .......  46 

3.  Naturalists  are  Proposing  no  Better  Scheme  than  Darwin's  46 

4.  The  Ablest  Scientists  and  Evolution . .  47 

VIII. 

BIBLE  CRITICISM  AND  EVOLUTION 

1.  Destructive  Intentions  of  Modern  Bible  Critics  .  .  »  53 

2.  Rejoinder  by  Professor  A.  H.  Sayce  of  Oxford  .  .  .  „  53 

IX. 

RELIGION  AND  EVOLUTION 


1.  Outcome  of  Darwinism . 54 

2.  Recent  Evolution  and  Religion . .  .  56 

X. 

CONCLUSION  59 

NOTES . 61 


I. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

I.  Hypothesis  oe  Evolution  Broadly  Applied.  —  It  has 
been  quite  the  fashion  of  late  years  to  employ  the  term  evolu¬ 
tion  with  much  latitude,  and  in  fields  outside  those  of  biology 
where  it  began  its  remarkably  popular  career. 

Herbert  Spencer,  one  of  the  very  much  praised  pioneers  in 
this  broader  application  of  the  theory,  built  his  scheme  of  social 
economy  and  government  upon  the  hypothesis  of  organic 
evolution.  So,  too.  Professor  Drummond’s  very  popular 
books  —  “  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,”  and  “  The 
Ascent  of  Man  ”  —  adhere  throughout  to  this  same  hypothesis. 
The  brilliant  reasoner  and  writer,  Professor  Goldwin  Smith, 
arguing  for  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul,  takes  occasion  to  say 
that,  ‘‘  It  has  been  overwhelmingly  demonstrated  that  man’s 
bodily  frame,  and  its  soul,  as  its  outcome  and  perfection,  have 
been  produced  by  a  process  of  evolution  from  lower  forms  of 
animal,  maybe  of  vegetable  life.” 

Dr.  Clifford,  a  leader  among  the  Non-Conformists  of  Eng¬ 
land,  in  a  surprisingly  favorable  comment  on  the  destructive 
criticism  recently  announced  by  the  Dean  of  Westminster, 
employs  these  words :  —  ‘‘We  have  in  the  main  accepted  evo¬ 
lution,  and  thereby  can  the  better  understand  the  majestic  ways 
of  God.” 

And  in  almost  every  field  of  literature,  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century  or  more,  writers  of  note  have  been  illustrating  or 
enforcing  their  discussions  by  appeals  to  evolution  as  seen  in 

7 


tlie  world  of  living  things  and  have  been  vying  with  one 
another  in  praise  of  Mr.  Darwin  and  his  wonderful  discovery. 
And,  too,  in  American  pulpits  and  in  some  theological  schools, 
the  theory  of  evolution  has  been  quite  as  often  presented  and 
with  about  as  much  reverence  and  unction  as  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  atonement. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  this  theory,  in  the  more  recent 
nse  made  of  it,  is  scarcely  less  entitled  to  a  place  among  sys¬ 
tems  of  theology  than  is  the  creed  formulated  by  the  Nicene 
Fathers.  And  perhaps  no  one  will  question  the  further  state¬ 
ment  that  the  evolution  theory,  with  its  implications,  has  con¬ 
tributed  largely  to  the  vigorous  growth  of  destructive  crit¬ 
icism,  and  that  the  popularizing  of  it  together  with  the  efforts 
of  higher  critics  to  keep  it  well  advertised  have,  almost  more 
than  anything  else,  helped  to  weaken  the  hold  that  Christian 
faith  and  religious  conviction  once  had  upon  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  the  American  people. 

2.  Definitions.  —  A  few  words  at  this  point  by  way  of 
definition  and  explanation  may  be  allowed :  perhaps  are 
required. 

The  leading  word  in  our  topic,  collapse,  describes  a  thing 
that  has  tumbled  into  such  ruin  as  will  not  permit  of  recon¬ 
struction.  There  is,  too,  suggested  by  the  word  the  idea  that 
there  has  not  been  ample  support,  as  when  a  poorly-framed 
house  goes  to  the  ground,  or  that  there  had  been  too  much 
inflation,  as  when  an  over-blown  bladder  bursts. 

Evolution,  the  other  important  word  of  our  topic,  in  its  bio- 
logical  restriction,  involves  the  theory  that  living  things  origin¬ 
ally  came  upon  the  earth  in  the  form  of  germs,  supernaturally 
created,  or  imported,  or  produced  by  spontaneous  generation, 
and  then  through  natural  and  orderly  processes,  long  con¬ 
tinued,  developed  into  various  species  of  plants  and  animals, 

existing  and  extinct,  culminating  in  man,  who  is  recognized 

8 


ill  physical  science  as  the  crown  and  glory  of  all  earthly 
things/  * 

3.  History  and  Triumph  of  Evolution. —  In  one  form 
or  another,  the  theory  of  evolution  is  well  on  in  years,  —  an¬ 
cient  philosophers,  church  fathers  and  scientists  for  at  least 
twenty  centuries  have  been  its  advocates,  though  it  did  not 
gain  its  majorities,  nor  make  what  has  been  termed  its  con¬ 
quest  of  the  world,”  until  Dr.  Alfred  R.  Wallace  and  Charles 
Darwin,  in  1858,  separately  announced  the  hypothesis  of  the 
“  Origin  of  the  Species  by  spontaneous  variation,  and  the  sur¬ 
vival  of  the  fittest  throug'h  natural  selection,”  in  “  the  struggle 
for  existence.”  For  a  while  after  Mr.  Dar\vin’s  announcement 
there  was  among  scientists  and  philosophers  quite  a  good  deal 
of  hesitation  in  adopting  his  views,  but  later  they  were  so  gen¬ 
erally  accepted  in  Germany,  England  and  America  that  for  one 
to  have  questioned  them  in  either  of  these  countries,  at  any 
time  during  a  period  of  twenty  years,  or  more,  beginning  near 
1880,  would  have  been  regarded  by  many  as  sure  evidence  of 
an  unphilosophic,  unscientific  and  unscholarly  mind. 

4.  Naturalists  and  Supernaturalists.  —  From  the  ear¬ 
lier  times  and  on  to  the  present,  evolutionists  have  been  divided 
into  two  classes,  naturalists  and  supernaturalists.  The  natural¬ 
ist,  as  the  term  implies,  rules  God  out  of  the  universe  from 
start  to  finish,  the  claim  being  that  nature  is  abundantly  able 
to  look  after  herself  and  all  things  committed  to  her  care  inde¬ 
pendent  of  any  antecedent  or  outside  interpositions. 

The  supernaturalist,  on  the  other  hand,  admits  God  into  the 
scheme  of  the  universe  and  places  all  nature  more  or  less  under 
his  control.  In  the  mind  of  the  extreme  supernaturalist,  evolu¬ 
tion  is  little  other  than  God’s  method  in  world  building  and 
furnishing. 

*  The  notes  are  compiled  in  the  Appendix  and  are  indicated  there  by 
the  numerals  I,  TT,  ITT,  TV.  etc. 


9 


The  naturalist  and  supernatnralist,  however,  hold  in  com¬ 
mon,  that  all  developments  of  living  organisms,  whether  with 
or  without  external  supervision,  are  carried  on  strictly  in  har¬ 
mony  with  processes  represented  by  such  scientific  terms  as 
natural  selection,  struggle  for  existence,  survival  of  the  fittest, 
and  transmutation. 

The  superstructure,  builded  by  advocates  of  evolution, 
among  whom  have  been  philosophers,  scientists,  men  of  litera¬ 
ture  almost  without  number,  and  theologians  of  the  highest 
repute,  appears  from  some  points  of  view  imposing,  and  its 
foundations  at  one  time  seemed  as  impregnable  as  those  of  any 
human  invention  or  speculation  that  ever  had  a  name  in  science 
or  philosophy. 

5.  Indictme:nt.  —  Our  topic,  the  collapse  of  evolution,  im¬ 
plies,  therefore,  that  at  the  present  stage  of  scientific  enquiry, 
the  attractive  and  stately  edifice,  built  by  either  the  naturalist 
or  supernaturalist,  is  found  to  be  a  poorly  constructed  affair, 
supported  by  not  one  single  well  established  fact  in  the  whole 
domain  of  science,  philosophy  or  religion.  Now  it  must  be 
confessed  that  this  sweeping  indictment,  unless  established 
beyond  reasonable  question  and  by  facts  that  cannot  be  contro¬ 
verted,  would  properly  be  condemned  as  a  piece  of  ignorant, 
impertinent  and  insolent  dogmatism. 


II. 

UffE  GERMS  AND  NATURALISTIC  EVOLUTION. 

The  issue  being  now  squarely  before  us,  the  next  step  is  an 
examination  of  certain  claims  that  are  made  by  evolutionists, 
or  that  ought  to  be  made,  and  whose  establishment  is  essential 
to  the  successful  maintenance  of  their  theory. 

TO 


I.  LiFt:  Germs  said  to  be  a  Product  oe  Nature.  — And 
lirst,  the  naturalistic  evolutionist  contends  that  the  original 
germs,  from  which  all  life  has  been  developed,  came  into  exist¬ 
ence  by  some  unknown  natural  process  but  were  in  no  way 
dependent  upon  supernatural  agency.  Dr.  Buchner,  speaking 
for  this  class  o\  evolutionists,  clearly  states  the  case  thus: — • 
“  Matter  is  the  origin  of  all  that  exists:  all  natural  and  mental 
forces  are  inherent  in  it.  Nature,  the  all-engendering  and  all- 
devouring,  is  its  own  beginning  and  end,  its  birth  and  death. 
She  produces  man  by  her  own  power  and  takes  him  again.” 

And  it  should  be  added  that  in  exact  terms  evolution  means 
that  a  single  protoplasmic  cell  has,  by  a.  process  of  mul¬ 
tiplying  forms  through  an  indefinite  number  of  species,  pro¬ 
duced  all  the  forms  of  life  that  have  existed  on  earth,  with 
no  supernatural  interpositions.”  For  if  there  were  two,  or 
ten,  such  cells,  coming  into  existence  at  different  times,  then 
there  may  have  been  a  billion  or  more,  and  transmutation 
would  be  quite  unnecessary. 

It  may  occasion  surprise  to  say  that  even  supernaturalists 
are  of  late  inclining  to  the  theory  that  the  origin  of  living 
germs  may  also  fall  within  the  scope  of  processes  no  less 
natural  than  those  that  work  out  the  development  of  things. 

A  professor  in  Wesleyan  University,  who  assuredly  would 
resent  being  classed  among  atheists,  in  a  book  recently  pub¬ 
lished  states  the  case  thus:  —  ‘‘When  we  trace  a  continuous 
evolution  from  the  nebula  to  the  dawn  of  life  and  again  a  con¬ 
tinuous  evolution  from  the  dawn  of  life  to  the  varied  fauna  and 
flora  of  to-day,  crowned  with  glory  in  the  appearance  of  man 
himself,  we  can  hardly  fail  to  accept  the  suggestion  that  the 
transition  from  the  lifeless  to  the  living  was  itself  a  process  of 
evolution.” 

This  conclusion  is  logically  sound,  if  the  premises  are  cor¬ 
rect  ;  that  is,  if  the  unaided  forces  of  nature  have  really  evolved 

II 


from  structureless  germs  the  beautiful  organisms  and  mechan¬ 
isms  everywhere  met,  then  those  same  forces  ought  to  be  able, 
in  nature's  wonderful  laboratory,  to  manufacture  the  original 
germs  or  germ  from  which  those  complex  living  things  are 
developed. 

But  it  should  be  observed  that  the  author  begs  the  whole 
question,  his  premises  being  entirely  speculative,  and,  as  will 
appear  a  little  later,  entirely  without  scientific  support. 

2.  Life  Germs  as  yet  unaccounted  for  by  Naturalism. 


—  As  is  well  known,  the  experiments  of  Dr.  Bastian,  in  1871, 
secured  for  the  theory  of  the  spontaneous  generation  of  life 
germs  very  decided  support.  Later  there  came  into  use  among 
scientists  such  terms  as  ‘‘  bathmism,”  cosmic  ether,”  “  cos¬ 
mic  emotion,”  “  germplasm,”  pangenesis,”  “  protoplasm,” 
‘‘  growth  force,”  “  vital  fluid  ”  and  the  like,  all  suggesting  the 
strenuous  efforts  that  were  making  to  account  for  the  origin 
of  life.  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  not  for  five  or  ten 
years  have  these  terms,  once  potent  on  the  lips  of  scientists 
and  philosophers,  been  employed  seriously  by  any  reputable 
writer  on  these  subjects. 

Professor  Huxley  was  forced  reluctantly  and  rather  mourn¬ 
fully  to  give  up  his  bioplastic  theory."  Sir  William  Thomson, 
with  quick  dispatch,  surrendered  his  speculation  that  life  germs 
came  to  the  earth  on  a  meteorite  from  some  planet  or  star 
on  which  life  already  had  an  existence.  The  chemical  origin 
(jf  life,  at  one  time  advocated  by  Herbert  Spencer,  was  aban¬ 
doned  in  the  last  edition  of  his  ‘^Biology,”  and  the  words 
“  spontaneous  generation  ”  are  mentioned  no  longer  in  sci¬ 
entific  circles  except  when  classifying  it  among  those  theories 
that  have  not  a  particle  of  scientific  or  experimental  evidence 
in  their  support. 

“  I  share  Virchow’s  opinion,”  said  the  late  Professor  Tvn- 
dall,  that  the  theory  of  evolution,  in  its  complete  forni, 

13 


involves  the  assumption  tliat  at  some  period  or  other  of  the 
earth’s  history  there  occurred  what  would  now  be  called  spon¬ 
taneous  generation;  but  I  also  agree  with  him  that  the  proofs 
of  it  are  still  wanting.  1  also  hold  with  Virchow  that  the 
failures  have  been  so  lamentable  that  the  doctrine  is  utterly 
discredited.” 

In  a  word,  no  cautious  and  well-informed  scientist  of  what¬ 
ever  school  ventures  now  to  go  beyond  the  following  statement 
recently  made  by  a  thorough-going  naturalist : —  “  The  begin¬ 
nings  of  life  came  upon  the  earth  in  some  way  unknown  to 
science.” 

We  have  employed  these  words,  ‘‘well-informed  scientist,” 
advisedly,  being  fully  aware  that  men  who  are  to-day  holding 
professorships  in  American  colleges  are  still  asserting  the  pos¬ 
sibility  and  probability  of  creating  or  producing  life  by  chem¬ 
ical  agencies,  and  that  all  existing  life  originated  by  natural 
processes. 

The  professor  of  physiological  chemistry  in  the  University 
of  Chicago,  for  instance,  is  reported  to  have  used  recently  in 
his  lecture-room  these  words;  “The  divine  creation  of  life  is 
a  pure  humbug.  Life  originally  happened.  Life  is  made  up 
of  certain  organic  compounds.  Certain  organic  compounds 
were  made  by  nature.  The  compounds  came  together  in  some 
manner,  and  the  result  was  life.  I  believe  that  in  a  short  time 
real  life  will  be  created  in  the  laboratory.” 

For  a  man  who  professes  to  be  a  scientist  to  employ  such 
language  is  surprising  and  almost  incredible.  Here  is  nothing 
but  dogmatic  assertion,  of  which  a  canting  clergyman,  or 
mountebank,  not  to  say  scientist  and  university  professor, 
ought  to  be  ashamed. 

Weigh  these  words  that  will  be  a  poison  in  the  life  blood  of 
ihe  young  men  who  hear  and  believe  them :  —  “  The  divine 
creation  of  life  is  a  pure  humbug  ” !  This  sentence  challenges 

13 


the  wisdom  not  only  of  prophets,  apostles  and  of  our  Lord  him¬ 
self  but  also  of  scientists  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  the 
investigation  of  nature’s  phenomena  and  who  have  taken  rank 
in  the  past  and  who  take  rank  to-day  with  those  who  stand  the 
highest  in  their  departments  of  study  —  such  men  as  Agassiz, 
Beale,  Carpenter,  Dana,  Davy,  Dawson,  Faraday,  Forbes, 
Gray,  Helmholtz,  Herschel,  Lord  Kelvin,  Leibnitz,  Lotze, 
Maury,  Pasteur,  Romanes,  Verdt  and  hundreds  of  others  who 
ascribe  to  God  and  to  God  alone  the  power  to  originate  life. 


III. 

EVOLUTION,  THEISTIC  AND  NATURALISTIC; 

STUDIES  IN  GEOLOGY. 

At  this  point  some  one  is  waiting  to  put  in  a  reminder 
that  naturalistic  evolution  and  the  origin  of  life  are  not  at 
present  questions  of  chief  importance,  since  the  popular  and 
more  recent  view  of  the  theory  allows  dhe  supernatural  to  be 
invoked  whenever  it  suits  the  convenience  of  the  evolutionist, 
or  whenever  natural  agencies  fail. 

But  we  may  be  permitted  to  suggest  that  the  moment  a 
supernatural  factor  is  allowed  to  take  any  part  in  the  scheme 
of  the  universe,  that  moment  there  is  a  weakening  in  every 
timber  of  any  theory  of  evolution  that  has  been  devised.  In 
other  words,  if  God  is  present  and  needed  in  one  part  of  the 
web  of  the  physical  universe,  for  instance,  in  the  creation  of 
life  germs,  he  is  equally  needed  in  every  other.  His  interven¬ 
tion  is  no  more  called  for  when  the  planet  Jupiter  begins  its 
mighty  revolutions  than  when  a  dying  sparrow  falls  to  the 
ground.  Unaided  natural  forces  can  no  more  make  a  hair 
of  the  head  than  they  can  make  the  mightiest  mammal  that 

ever  walked  the  earth  or  crushed  forests  under  its  feet. 

14 


If,  however,  it  is  insisted  that  extreme  naturalistic  evolution 
should  be  taken  out  of  this  discussion,  we  will  deal  for  a  few 
moments  with  that  type  called  supernatural  or  theistic,  that  in 
some  quarters  has  been  received  with  almost  “  an  intellectual 
frenzy  ” ;  a  type,  too,  that  has  no  hesitation  in  attacking  ortho¬ 
dox  views  of  Bible  revelation  and  primitive  Christian  dogma, 
and  that  announces  without  apparent  misgiving  certain  claims 
upon  the  establishment  of  which,  this  popular,  but  dangerous, 
illogical  and  utterly  vague  scheme  of  evolution  depends. 

I.  No  Law  of  Universal  Improvement.  —  And  first  at¬ 
tention  is  called  to  what  at  one  time  was  thought  to  be  in  the 
world  of  living  things  a  universal  law  of  development  and 
improvement,  of  elaboration  and  progression.  And  certainly 
from  a  biological  point  of  view  and  from  the  application  that 
has  been  made  of  the  theory  of  evolution  to  various  philosophic 
cal  and  theological  subjects,  the  evolutionist  ought  to  be  able 
to  show  that  both  sub-inorganic  and  organic  evolution  is  such 
as  to  secure  general  progress,  more  or  less  pronounced  and 
more  or  less  rapid,  the  rapidity  depending  upon  surrounding 
conditions,  and  that  there  are  among  living  things  continuous 
and  unbroken  connections  between  simple  forms  and  species 
and  those  that  are  the  most  complex.  Without  such  progress 
and  connections  it  is  obvious  that  organic  evolution  rests  upon 
an  exceedingly  precarious  foundation. 

Now,  while  all  this  is  implied  in  evolution  and  while  a  hasty 
study  of  the  facts  may  leave  an  impression  that  there  is  in  the 
world  of  living  things  what  seems  to  be  a  continuous  elabora¬ 
tion  or  progression,  yet  a  more  careful  survey  discloses  such 
a  mass  of  evidence  pointing  in  the  exact  opposite  direction 
that  leading  scientists  are  now  saying  scarcely  a  word  as  to  con¬ 
tinuous  and  universal  progress.  On  the  other  hand,  they  are 
freely  using  such  words  as  retrogradation  and  deterioration. 

But  as  the  facts  bearing  on  this  point  are  essential  to  the 

15 


rounding-  out  of  the  discussion  and  as  they  will  be  suggestive 
in  dealing  with  other  phases  of  evolution,  we  shall  be  pardoned 
for  calling  attention  to  them. 

( 1 )  Beginnings  and  Endings.  —  And  one  of  the  first 
observations  made  by  the  student  of  nature  is  that  all  things 
that  have  their  beginnings  and  progressions  also  have  their 
declinings  and  endings. 

“  ‘So  careful  of  the  type?’  but  no. 

From  scarped  cliff  and  quarried  stone 
She  cries,  ‘A  thousand  types  are  gone; 

I  care  for  nothing,  all  shall  go.’  ” 

And  since  the  human  race  began,  though  all  sorts  of  arti¬ 
ficial  agencies  have  been  employed  and  though  there  has  been 
the  closest  scrutiny,  yet  not  a  single  distinctively  new  type  of 
plant,  or  animal,  on  what  is  called  broad  lines,  has  come  into 
existence,  but  thousands  have  disappeared,  never  to  return,  and 
many  others  “are  slowly  but  surely  marching  to  their  doom.” 

And  the  whole  magnificent  procession  of  living  things,  at 
the  close  of  which  stands  the  human  family,  has  stopped,  nor 
is  there  any  scientific  expectation  that  it  ever  again  will  begin 
to  move.  And  from  present  indications  and  tendencies  man 
has  no  ground  of  hope  as  to  continuance  or  improvement, 
except  for  a  limited  time,  and  in  realms  of  mind  and  spirit 
with  which  the  biologist  has  nothing  to  do.  Birth,  growth, 
decline  and  death  is  one  of  nature's  most  exacting  laws  and  is 
no  truer  of  the  insect  that  lives  but  a  day  than  of  the  physical 
organism  of  man  or  of  the  whole  vast  material  universe. 

Rut  this,  says  the  evolutionist,  is  not  what  is  meant  by  the 
law  of  improvement  and  progress.  Is  not  ?  Well,  then,  let  ns 
know  definitely  what  is  meant.  ^ 

We  mean  this:  —  that  the  species,  among  plants  and  ani- 
.  mals,  as  the  ages  pass  are  on  tlie  whole  improving. 

(2)  Multitudes  of  Species,  Flora  and  Fauna,  shozo  no 

Dez^elopment  zvJien  compared  zoith  their  Earliest  Types.  — 

16 


Beginning'  with  what  is  called  “  the  primordial  zone,”  which 
covers  the  earliest  stage  of  biological  history,  and  coining 
down  to  more  recent  times,  there  will  be  found  numberless 
species  that  have  shown  no  improvement  since  their  creation, 
'riie  algae  or  sea  weeds,  that  appeared  in  the  distant  Silurian 
deposit,  millions  of  years  ago,  were  no  less  perfect  than  those 
of  the  same  class  found  in  our  modern  seas.  The  oak,  birch, 
hazel  and  Scotch  fir,  easily  traced  back  thousands  of  years, 
have  remained  all  this  time  wdthout  the  slightest  improvement. 

And,  toe,  in  the  animal  kingdom  the  same  discoveries  are 
made.  Insects  that  built  the  coral  reefs  of  Florida,  in  the 
three  hundred  centuries  of  their  existence  have  shown  no 
improvement. 

The  crustacean  family,  especially  the  crayfish  group,  that 
first  appeared  near  the  close  of  the  carboniferous  ])eriod,  has 
gained  nothing  though  geological  period  after  geological 
period  has  gone  by  since  its  creation. 

The  highest  type  of  mollusk  known  to  scientists  is  the  one 
that  appeared  far  back  in  geological  history.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  earliest  fish,  reptilian  and  mammalian  families; 
they  each  appeared  fully  equipped  at  the  outset  in  the  pleni¬ 
tude  of  their  power,”  and  never  since  have  shown  the  least 
elaboration  or  improvement. 

And  equally  significant  and  quite  as  troublesome  to  the 
evolutionist  are  the  recent  discoveries  on  the  Pacific  coast, 
made  by  deep  sea  dredging  under  the  direction  of  W.  E. 
Ritter,  Professor  of  Zoology,  University  of  California.  At  a 
depth  of  seven  and  a  half  miles,  where  there  is  almost  absolute 
uniformity  of  conditions,  have  been  taken  living  creatures 
essentially  identical  with  those  that  lived  in  deep  water  in 
the  eocene  ages,  whose  fossils  are  now  found  in  geological 
strata,  that  during  terrestrial  upheavals  were  raised  from  sea 
depths  millions  of  ages  ago. 


17 


Ill  comparing  these  ancient  and  more  recent  forms  no 
improvement  is  discovered ;  the  earliest  ones  are  as  absolutely 
perfect  and  as  marvelously  beautiful  in  color  and  structure  as 
any  living  creature,  large  or  small,  that  came  into  existence 
in  the  later  geological  ages.  While  both  naturalistic  and  super- 
naturalistic  evolutionists  are  acknowledging  these  facts,  yet, 
as  would  be  expected,  it  is  with  some  measure  of  reluctance, 
for  it  is  evident  that  every  such  fact  weakens  the  foundations 
of  evolution,  and  our  friends,  therefore,  hardly  could  be 
blamed  if  they  sincerely  wished  that  all  these  later  discoveries 
had  remained  in  the  depths  of  the  sea. 

It  is  reported  of  Professor  E.  D.  Cope  that  on  seeing  a 
newly  discovered  specimen  that  controverted  one  of  his 
hypotheses,  he  quietly  said;  “  If  no  one  were  looking  I  should 
be  glad  to  throw  that  fossil  out  of  the  window.” 

Coming  to  early  historic  times  it  is  found  that  mummies 
of  cats,  ibises,  birds  of  prey,  dogs,  crocodiles  and  heads  of 
bulls  discovered  in  the  tombs  and  temples  of  upper  and  lower 
Egypt,  placed  there  from  four  to  five  thousand  years  ago,  are 
identical  with  their  living  representatives. 

(3)  Man  Viewed  Biologically  shows  no  Imj>rovement — 
Passing  from  these  lower  forms  of  living  things  to  the  highest, 
represented  by  man,  there  still  will  be  discovered,  on  biologi¬ 
cal  and  physiological  grounds,  no  evidence  of  improvement. 

Professor  Pierre  Broca,  who  made  a  very  careful  study  of 
the  celebrated  “  Cro-Magnon  skull,”  belonging  to  the  earliest 
stone  age,  says :  “  The  great  volume  of  the  brain,  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  frontal  region,  the  fine  elliptical  profile  of  the 
anterior  portion  of  the  skull  are  incontestable  evidences  of 
superiority  and  are  characteristics  that  usually  are  found  only 
in  civilized  nations.”  Professor  Pluxley,  describing  one  of 
the  oldest  existing  fossil  skulls,  says  that  “  so  far  as  size  and 

shape  are  concerned,  it  might  have  been  the  brain  of  a  philoso- 

t8 


pher/’  And  what  is  true  of  the  skull  is  equally  true  of  other 
parts  of  the  human  body. 

A  scientist,  skilled  in  these  subjects,  who  has  examined 
statuettes  recently  discovered  in  Crete,  employs  these  words : 
‘‘  I  spent  a  long  time  studying  the  muscles  and  veins  of  the 
Cretan  forearm  of  four  thousand  years  ago,  as  shown  in  some 
of  Dr.  Evans’  wonderful  photographs.  Their  arrangement  is 
identical  to  the  smallest  detail  with  that  of  the  surface  veins 
and  muscles  in  the  arm  that  writes  these  words.  These  statu¬ 
ettes  constitute,  in  my  opinion,  the  oldest  exact  anatomical 
records  in  the  world,  and  my  study  of  them  leads  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  in  four  thousand  years  there  has  been  no  change 
in  even  the  minutest  details  of  the  forearm  of  man.’’ 

And  upon  enlarging  the  field  of  investigation  the  evolu¬ 
tionist  is  confronted  with  still  more  serious  grounds  for 
embarrassment,  for  there  is  not  only  no  universal  law  of 
improvement,  or  elaboration,  on  which  his  theory  largely 
depends,  but  on  the  other  hand  in  scores  of  instances  there 
is  among  things  having  life  a  pronounced  deterioration  of 
parts  and  functions. 

There  is  one  family  of  the  ascidia,  a  group  that  begins  with 
backbone,  throat  and  cerebral  eye,  each  of  which  disappears 
as  the  animal  matures,  and  is  never  restored.  Some  of  the 
parasite  species  begin  with  legs,  jaws,  eyes  and  ears,  but  lose 
them  all,  becoming  after  awhile  a  mere  sac  whose  life  ever 
after  consists  in  absorbing  nourishment  and  laying  eggs. 

The  fish  family  began  early,  and  still  lives  on,  but  has  been 
in  process  of  degeneration  ever  since  the  Devonian  period. 
Likewise  none  of  the  modern  mammalia  equal  in  size  or 
strength  those  that  flourished  during  the  geological  age  to 
which  they  gave  their  name. 

And  from  biological  and  physiological  points  of  view  the 
human  race  not  only  has  not  gained  a  step  since  the  dawn  of 

19 


liistory,  but  on  the  whole,  sometimes  slowly,  sometimes  rap¬ 
idly,  has  been  deteriorating:  and  if  history  warrants  any  state¬ 
ment,  it  is  that  except  for  a  mind  endowed  at  the  outset  \vith 
conscience,  with  whicli  organic  evolution  has  nothing  to  do, 
and  had  not  religion,  especially  the  Jewish  and  Christian, 
with  their  inspiring  and  uplifting  power  come  to  the  aid 
of  the  human  race,  mankind  long  since  would  have  disap- 
])eared  forever  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Nothing,  therefore,  is  better  established  in  the  realms  of 
science  than  the  conservative  announcement  of  the  late  Pro¬ 
fessor  Cope,  a  pronounced  evolutionist,  at  least  until  just 
before  his  death :  “  Retrogradation  in  nature  is  as  well  estal)- 
lished  as  evolution.”  * 

(4)  Fixedness,  Disappearances,  Degeneration,  Iniprove- 
nients  and  Reversions.  —  A  fuller  statement  of  the  case  is,  that 
some  forms  of  animal  life  in  geological  history  have  remained 
fixed  for  millions  of  years  and  are  still  living  on ;  others  ap¬ 
peared  and  remained  without  change  for  hundreds  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  years  and  then  disappeared  as  suddenly  as  they  came ; 
others  began  to  degenerate  as  soon  as  they  appeared,  and  still 
others  in  more  recent  times  under  domestication,  or  artificial 
help,  have  been  much  improved,  though  left  to  themselves  they 
usually  revert  tO'  their  original  condition. 

When,  therefore,  the  evolutionist,  in  support  of  his  theory, 
says  there  is  in  the  kingdom  of  nature  anything  that  can  be 
called  a  universal  law  of  development  and  improvement,  he 
most  certainly  is  not  telling  the  truth. 

Universal  laws  do  not  depend  upon  circumstances  or  envi¬ 
ronments,  but  were  true  and  operative  yesterday,  are  so  to¬ 
day,  and  will  be  so  forever,  and  everywhere. 

We  presume  no  one  will  question  this  additional  statement 
that  universal  and  fixed  laws  are  far  less  numerous  in  the 

physical  universe  than  they  were  once  supposed  to  be. 

20 


2.  No  Transmutation  or  SpeJciKs  by  Natural  or  Arti- 
I'lCiAL  Processes.  —  Attention  is  next  called  to  a  claim  of  the 
evolutionist,  held  with  much  tenacity,  by  both  the  supernatu¬ 
ralist  and  naturalist,  that  by  natural  processes  one  species  of 
plant,  or  animal,  may  be  transformed  into  another,  and  that 
through  long  continued  and  progressive  transmutations  the 
liigher  types  of  animal  life,  including  man,  have  been  evolved 
from  the  lower. 

It  should  be  said  at  this  point  that,  if  the  transmutation  of 
species  is  not  established,  then  organic  evolution  can  have  no 
scientific  standing.  And  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  man  is  a 
transmutation  from  the  ape  family,  or  from  some  other  family 
back  of  the  ape,  from  which  it  and  man  have  both  been 
evolved,  then  the  theory  of  evolution  breaks  down  at  the  very 
point  where  it  is  vitally  important  it  should  be  maintained. 

( I )  Horse  Pedigree.  —  The  reader  is  almost  entitled  to  an 
apology  for  the  repetition  of  the  so-called  proofs  of  transmu¬ 
tation,  some  time  since  overthrown,  that  are  nevertheless  the 
stock  in  trade  of  scores  of  men  who  appear  to  be  either  unpar- 
donably  ignorant  of  facts  already  established,  or  else  are  delib¬ 
erately  trying  to  fool  the  public  mind. 

For  instance,  there  are  the  fossil  bones  of  the  so-called  pre¬ 
historic  horse  that  from  time  to  time  have  been  paraded  as 
evidence  of  the  transmutation  theory. 

A  Chicago  University  professor,  occupying  the  chair  of 
paleontology,  in  reply  to  an  article  written  by  a  Boston  pro¬ 
fessor  of  theology,  ventured  recently  this  statement :  —  “  The 
modern  horse  can  be  definitely  traced  through  a  series  of  inter¬ 
mediate  stages  to  a  primitive  species  having  four  toes  on  each 
foot.’’ 

Now  the  only  excuse,  and  it  is  a  poor  one,  for  this  state¬ 
ment,  is  that  Professor  Huxley,  twenty-five  or  thirty  years 
ago,  in  a  desperate  effort  to  find  something  to  support  his 


“  Demonstrated  Evidence  of  Evolution/’  made  use  of  these 
fossils,  the  earliest  species  of  which  are  found  in  the  eocene 
strata.  Our  Chicago  professor  may  not  know,  perhaps,  that 
another  animal  has  been  discovered  having  five  toes,  of  which 
Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn,  of  the  Musuem  of  Natural 
History,  New  York,  has  recently  given  an  account,  and  pos¬ 
sibly  another  may  yet  be  discovered  having  fifteen  toes.  The 
facts  are,  however,  that  all  these  fossils  differ  so  entirely  from 
the  bones  of  the  modern  horse  that  the  animal  to  which  they 
belonged  can  not,  on  strictly  scientific  grounds,  be  called  a 
horse  at  all.  And  certainly  it  may  be  questioned,  so  far  as 
feet  are  concerned,  to  which  the  evolutionist  confines  his  rea¬ 
soning,  whether  the  four-toed  animal  is  not  of  higher  order 
than  the  one-toed  or  hoofed  animal.  Differentiation  rather 
than  convolution  is  nature’s  method  of  improving  the  species  if 
the  teaching  of  the  naturalist  is  to  be  our  guide. 

But  what  makes  it  all  the  worse  for  the  paleontological  pro¬ 
fessor  is,  that  the  very  species  that  ought  to  connect  those 
supposed  earlier  ancestors  with  the  modern  horse,  thus  form¬ 
ing  the  needed  missing  links,  are  entirely  unknown  in  geologi¬ 
cal  history.  While  there  are  some  resemblances  between  those 
four-toed  animals  and  the  modern  horse,  as  there  are  some 
resemblances  between  a  cow  and  a  crow,  a  man  and  a  mouse, 
each  having  a  head  with  its  eyes,  riose  and  ears,  and  each 
having  feet  with  which  to  walk,  yet  these  resemblances  fur¬ 
nish  no  more  evidence  of  organic  connections  and  transmuta¬ 
tions  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other  —  that  is,  no  evidence 
at  all.  In  each  instance  these  differentlv  toed  animals  lived 
their  geological  periods  and  then  forever  disappeared,  having 
had  neither  ancestors  nor  descendants.  Or  to  make  the  case 
a  little  more  specific,  and  beginning  with,  the  orohippus,  found 
in  the  eocene  period,  there  followed  the  mesohippus,  miohip- 
pus,  protohippus  and  so  on,  to  the  modern  horse.  Now, 


adopting  Haeckel’s  estimate  of  the  vital  era  ”  of  the  earth, 
the  orohippus  lived  about  three  hundred  million  years  ago. 
I.^etween  that  animal  and  the  modern  horse  there  are  four 
so-called  intermediate  species,  each  of  which  flourished  from 
twenty  to  sixty  million  years.  Each  s]jecies  abruptly  appeared, 
remained  fixed  that  length  of  time  and  then  suddenly  disap¬ 
peared,  and  where  thousands  and  even  millions  of  the  inter- 
niediate  forms  of  the  different  species  are  demanded  by  the 
evolutionist,  not  one  that  is  assured  has  yet  been  discovered. 
When  Mr.  Darwin  and  Professor  Huxley  were  confronted 
with  this,  that  might  well  have  been  regarded  as  a  fatal  fact, 
they  met  it  by  saying  that  the  records  are  imperfect  and 
that  the  intermediate  forms  need  not  be  looked  for.  But  may 
we  not  ask,  why  not  look  for  them  and  why  not  expect  to  find 
them,  at  least  in  some  numbers,  if  they  ever  existed?  These 
are  questions  that  no  one  should  be  condemned  for  asking. 

The  most  of  this  talk,  however,  is  twenty-five  or  thirty 
years  old,  and  our  Chicago  professor  should  have  known  that 
geologists,  on  some  of  these  questions,  have  changed  their 
views  two  hundred  times  in  one  hundred  years,”  and  that  no 
reputable  geologist,  or  paleontologist,  at  the  present  time  is 
at  all  satisfied  with  the  evidence  of  the  horse  pedigree  derived 
from  those  fossils.'' 

(2)  Java  Skeleton.  —  Another  piece  of  effete  evidence, 
once  generally  employed  by  the  advocates  of  evolution  but 
lately  by  no  scientist  of  distinction,  are  the  fossil  bones  of  the 
oi'ice  famous  Java  skeleton  that  for  a  time  had  the  reputation  of 
being  the  missing  link,  or  one  of  them,  between  man  and  the 
monkey  family. 

The  same  professor  of  whom  we  were  just  speaking,  the 
Chicago  man,  recently  ventured  this  announcement :  “  A  few 
years  ago  there  were  discovered  in  Java  the  skull  and  portion 
of  a  skeleton  of  a  creature  to  which  the  name  pithecanthropus 

23 


erectus  was  given.  Competent  paleontologists  and  anthropolo¬ 
gists  to-day  believe  it  to  be  a  real  connecting  link  between  man 
and  the  lower  animals.” 

Now,  the  facts  in  this  case  are  of  more  than  ordinary  inter¬ 
est,  and  are  these:  In  the  month  of  September,  1891,  Dubois, 
a  Dutch  physician,  discovered  a  tooth  on  the  island  of  Java, 
about  forty-five  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  earth ;  one  month 
later  he  found  the  roof  of  a  skull  about  three  feet  from  where 
he  found  the  tooth,  and  in  August,  1892,  he  found  a  thigh  bone 
forty-five  feet  further  away,  and  later,  another  tooth. 

That  is  all  that  is  known  of  the  wonderful  pithecanthropus, 
the  link  that  connects  man  with  the  lower  animals.  A  year 
or  two  after  these  discoveries  the  world’s  famous  zoologists 
met  at  Leyden,  and  among  other  things  examined  were  the 
remains  of  pithecanthropus.  Ten  of  those  scientists  concluded 
that  they  were  nothing  but  the  bones  of  an  ape,  seven  held 
that  they  were  those  of  a  man,  and  seven  concluded  that  the}’ 
were  really  the  missing  link  connecting  man  and  the  ape.  So 
that  of  twenty-four  of  the  most  eminent  scientists  of  Europe, 
only  seven,  not  one-third,  ascribed  any  importance  whatever 
to  this  pithecanthropus  erectus. 

But  the  amusing  thing  about  this  celebrated  paleontological 
affair  is  a  recent  explanation  that  accounts  for  the  different 
opinions  of  those  Leyden  experts,  though  rather  hard  on  the 
scientists;  it  is  given  by  Professor  D.  C.  Cunningham,  of  Dub¬ 
lin,  one  of  the  highest  authorities  in  Great  Britain  on  ques¬ 
tions  of  comparative  anatomy.  His  conclusion  is  that  those 
different  bones  do  not  belong  to  the  same  animal  at  all,  some 
of  them  being  those  of  a  monkey  or  baboon,  the  rest  human. 
So  that  the  missing  link,  pithecanthropus,  turns  out  to  be 
nothing  but  a  few  bones  of  a  monkey  and  fewer  of  a  man 
found  not  very  far  apart  on  the  island  of  Java.  But  what 
seems  unpardonable  in  a  Chicago  professor  is  to  palm  off  those 
bones  on  the  unsuspecting  laymen  of  his  town  as  evidence  of 
the  transmutation  theory.  24 


IV. 


EVOLUTION,  THEISTIC  AND  NATURALISTIC; 
STUDIES  IN  BIOLOCxY,  EMBRYOLOGY  AND 
COMPARATIVE  ANATOMY. 

We  may  now  allow  the  evolutionist,  if  he  desires,  to  retreat 
from  the  field  of  geology,  where  he  has  met  with  all  sorts  of 
discomfiture,  to  that  of  biology  and  kindred  sciences,  where  he 
has  been  thinking  he  could  find  more  secure  entrenchments. 
From  these  latter  fields,  with  a  show  of  confidence,  he  has 
presented,  in  support  of  transmutationism,  quite  an  amount 
of  exceedingly  interesting,  if  not  convincing,  evidence. 

I.  Development  of  the  Human  Body.  —  With  assur¬ 
ance  and  satisfaction  the  evolutionist  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  human  body,  beginning  as  a  single  cell,  only  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  twentieth  part  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  develops  into  a 
man  weighing  two  hundred  pounds.  Here,  says  the  evolution¬ 
ist,  is  evidence  of  what  nature  can  do.  Certainly,  but  what  has 
that  in  common  with  the  evolution  of  one  species  into  another  ? 
From  cell  to  man  no  mutation  takes  place.  The  cell  is  the 
man.  The  development  of  cells  and  germs  is  one  thing,  — 
evolution  by  transmutations  is  another :  they  are  as  distinct 
from  each  other  as  day  from  night. 

Again,  following  out  an  observation  that  in  the  embryonic 
state  man  passes  through  the  different  stages  of  worm,  fish, 
reptile  and  quadruped,  the  evolutionist  has  argued  that  the 
human  race  has,  therefore,  been  evolved  from  the  worm,  fish, 
reptile  and  quadruped.  This  certainly  is  a  momentous  induc¬ 
tion  from  limited  data,  indeed  from  almost  no  data  at  all. 

If  we  may  speak  with  perfect  plainness,  an  inexcusable 
blunder  in  this  instance  is  committed  by  reason  of  overlook¬ 
ing,  or,  what  is  worse,  by  reason  (ff  a  misinterpretation  and 

25 


false  application  of  the  prophetic  element  in  nature.  That  is, 
the  Creator  is  a  prophet  and  his  method  has  been  to  anticipate 
by  type,  pattern  or  prophecy  what  may  be  expected  in  his  sub¬ 
sequent  creations.  For  illustration  the  fins  of  fishes,  the  wings 
and  feet  of  birds  and  the  fore  and  hind  feet  of  brutes,  created 
before  man,  are  prophetic  of  the  arms  and  feet  of  man.  So, 
too,  the  lower  forms  of  life,  the  worm,  fish  and  reptile,  furnish 
hints  of  what  the  higher  and  later  forms  are  to  be. 

But  from  these  forecasts  or  parallels  in  nature  it  should  no 
sooner  be  inferred  that  there  have  been  transmutations  from 
earlier  and  lower  creations  to  the  higher,  than  it  is  to  be 
inferred  that  a  transmutation  from  quartz  crystals  to  oak 
trees  has  taken  place,  because  the  root-like  base  of  the  crystal 
resembles  the  lower  parts  of  a  tree.  This  employment  of  pro¬ 
phetic  anticipations  in  nature  to  bolster  up  the  theory  of' 
organic  connections  and  transmutations  is,  to  a  thoughtful 
mind,  about  as  flagrant  misuse  of  scientific  facts  as  one  can 
imagine. 

2.  Dkvelopment  oe  the  Human  Hand  and  Eye.  — 
And,  too,  naturalists  have  given  to  the  world  volumes  upon  the 
evolution  of  the  fin  of  a  fish  or  paw  of  an  animal  into  a  human 
hand. 

Sir  William  Abney,  F.  R.  S.,  etc.,  has  been  writing  lately 
of  the  evolution  of  the  eye,  finding,  he  thinks,  the  embryo  eye 
of  man  in  the  snail  tribe,  the  approach  to  an  eye  being  in 
certain  places  a  slight  thinning  of  the  skin  that  covers  the 
liead.  The  next  stage  in  eye  development  he  finds  in  a 
creature  of  low  order  where  the  thin  skin  gives  place  to  a 
slight  depression ;  the  next  advance  is  found  in  another  low 
order  of  life  where  there  is  a  sac  having  in  it  a  sort  of  pin¬ 
hole.  And  so  the  evolution  has  gone  on  until  the  perfect  eye 
is  reached.  But  the  trouble  with  these  speculations  of  Abney 

and  of  others  who  have  worked  the  same  field  is  that  nothing 

26 


has  been  proved.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  more  evidence 
of  any  organic  connection  between  the  thin  skin  on  the  head 
of  a  snail  and  the  full  formed  eye  of  a  mammal  than  there  is 
between  the  planet  Mars  and  a  man. 

3.  Rudimentary  or  Useless  Members.  —  In  support  of 
evolution  and  transmutation  much  has  been  written  about  the 
so-called  rudimentary,  undeveloped  and  unused  organs  and 
structures  of  different  animals.  The  range  of  investigation 
has  been  from  whales  to  snails  and  from  men  almost  to 
midgets.  But  in  all  this  writing  there  can  be  pointed  out  not 
a  single  sentence  bearing  on  evolution,  or  transmutation,  that 
can  be  called  a  strictly  scientihc  statement ;  it  is  ingenious,  very 
ingenious  and  interesting  conjecture;  and  that  is  all. 

4.  Metamorphosis.  —  And,  too,  metamorphosis  has  been 
forced  to  pay  tribute  to  transmutation.  The  so-called  evolu¬ 
tion  of  the  yolk  into  the  embryo  chicken,  then  into  the  full 
formed,  or  hatched  chicken ;  the  so-called  evolution  of  tlie 
tadpole  into  the  frog;  the  evolution  of  the  ovum  into  the  larva, 
then  into  the  pupa,  then  into  the  perfect  insect,  have  been 
used  as  evidence  of  nature’s  power  to  transmute  one  thing  into 
another.  But  at  this  late  day  nO'  scientist  who  cares  for  his 
reputation  will  make  such  a  plea.  From  a  biological  point  of 
view  the  fecundated  yolk  and  the  chicken,  the  tadpole  and  the 
frog,  the  larva  and  the  butterfly,  are  in  each  instance  one  and 
the  same  thing.  In  these  developments  there  is  no  more  of 
an  evolution  than  when  a  bud  becomes  the  full-blown  rose. 

5.  Crossing  oe  Species.  —  And,  too,  among  the  twenty 
thousand  species  of  animals  already  classified  not  one  instance 
is  known  where  different  species  have  been  crossed  that  the 
result  has  not  been  sterility  in  the  animal  thus  begotten;  and 
if  this  always  has  been  the  case,  and  no  reason  can  be  given 
for  thinking  otherwise,  then  there  is  shut  out  completely  what 
seems  to  be  the  most  available  agency  at  nature’s  command  for 
the  production  of  new  species. 

27 


/ 


6.  Variation  ot  SpECIks.  —  Quite  recently  Professor 
Hugo  de  Vries,  of  the  University  of  Amsterdam,  appears  to 
have  developed  a  mutable  species  of  primrose.  California  fruit 
growers  are  reporting  new  varieties  of  berries  and  plums. 
Professor  Standfus  of  Zurich,  by  variations  of  temperature, 
claims  to  have  obtained  several  new  species  of  butterhy. 

The  pigeon  and  mice  families  for  a  long  time  have  been 
under  experiment.  And  if  it  had  been  possible  to  produce  any 
new  species  on  what  are  called  “  broad  lines  ”  it  certainly 
would  have  been  done.  But  the  facts  are  that  nothing  has  been 
accomplished  in  the  way  of  natural  or  artificial  variation  out¬ 
side  of  an  oscillation  around  a  primitive  center.”  And  even 
in  such  cases,  the  ‘‘  mongrel  forms,”  as  has  been  pointed  out 
by  Professor  Peschel,  of  Leipsic,  never  have  been  success¬ 
fully  established  nor  perpetuated  beyond  a  few  generations,” 
and  among  the  sharply  defined  animal  forms  “  any  abandon¬ 
ment  of  original  types  is  followed  by  the  complete  extinction  of 
the  family.” 

It  appears,  therefore,  in  all  these  cases  that  there  is  no  evi¬ 
dence  whatever  of  a  tendency  in  nature  towards  the  transmu¬ 
tation  of  species.  One  might  as  well  argue  such  tendency 
when  the  sweet  orange  or  the  Baldwin  apple  is  budded,  or 
grafted,  into  wild  trees,  securing  thereby  a  specially  rich 
and  luscious  fruit.  Improvement  and  variation  are  vastly  dif¬ 
ferent  from  transmutation. 

7.  Scientific  Classification.  —  We  next  call  attention 
to  certain  matters  grouped  under  what  is  known  as  scientific 
classification.  That  is,  whenever  there  is  discovered  in  geolog¬ 
ical  deposits  the  remains  of  an  animal  before  unknown,  the 
skilled  paleontologist  finds  no  difficulty  in  placing  it  in  its 
proper  class  or  order.  But  this  would  be  impossible,  as  any  one 
can  see,  if  in  past  ages  transmutations  had  been  continually,  or 

even  occasionally  taking  place.  And,  too,  if  transmutati(>ns 

28 


were  now  going  on,  tlie  world  would  be  so  full  of  animals  in 
various  stages  of  re-formation  and  variation  that  classifica¬ 
tion  would  be  out  of  the  question.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  how¬ 
ever,  the  scientist  is  not  embarrassed  by  any  such  perplexing 
conditions. 

But  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  transmutationist  keep 
multiplying.  It  is  estimated  that  organized  life  has  been  on 
earth  fifty,  ])erhaps  a  thousand,  million  years.  It  is  also 
estimated  that  there  are  at  the  present  time  two  and  a  half 
millions  of  different  species  of  plants  and  animals,  and  that 
during  the  entire  “  vital  period  ”  of  the  earth  there  have  been 
fifty  times  as  many,  or  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  million 
species,  while  an  estimate  in  numbers  of  the  different  individ¬ 
uals  belonging  to  these  different  living  and  extinct  species  is 
beyond  comprehension.  And  yet  in  the  field  of  geological 
history  and  in  that  of  human  history  not  a  discovery  has 
been  made  indicating  that  among  these  multitudes  of  species 
and  billions  of  individuals  there  has  been  a  single  case  of 
transmutation. 

8.  Everything  after  its  Kind;  Studies  in  the  Floral 
Kingdom.  —  This  matter  of  transmutation  is  so  vital  in  the 
discussion  and  gives  such  significance  to  the  remarkable  words 
in  the  Book  of  Genesis  that  we  may  be  more  specific  and  dwell 
upon  it  a  moment  longer.  In  Genesis  is  this  reading:  “And 
God  said.  Let  the  earth  put  forth  grass  .  .  .  herb  .  .  .  tree 
after  its  kind.  And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass  and  herb 
yielding  seed  after  its  kind,  and  tree  bearing  fruit,  wherein  is 
the  seed  thereof,  after  its  kind.  .  .  .  And  God  said,  Let  the 
earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  its  kind,  cattle,  and 
creeping  things  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  its  kind;  and  it 
was  so  ” ;  and  it  has  been  so  from  the  beginning  until  the 
present  moment.  Seaweed  for  millions,  perhaps  a  thousand 

million  years,  until  now  has  “  brought  forth  after  its  kind." 

29 


vSo,  too,  the  cedar,  poplar,  willow,  oak,  fig,  tulip,  spice-wood, 
sassafras,  walnut,  buckthorn,  sumac,  cinnamon,  apple  and 
plum,  from  their  first  appearance  thousands  of  years  ago,  in¬ 
variably  and  unvaryingly,  have  brought  forth  after  their  kind. 

To  an  interesting  pamphlet  by  A.  L.  Gredley,  A.  M., 
entitled,  “  Thoughts  on  Evolution,”  we  are  indebted  for  this 
statement  which  no  scientist  will  call  in  question :  — 

“  There  are  millions  of  protoplasmic  vegetable  cells  every¬ 
where  about  us,  each  one  capable  of  receiving  a  life  principle, 
but  only  from  its  own  peculiar  source  and  then  its  potency  is 
confined  to  development  only  along  its  own  peculiar  line.  The 
protoplasmic  cells  on  an  incipient  corn  cob  cannot  be  fertilized 
by  the  pollen  of  the  rose.  They  must  be  fertilized  by  pollen 
from  the  corn  tassel  and  then  they  will  appropriate  the  nutri¬ 
ment  brought  to  them  by  the  parent  stalk  and  develop  into 
corn  and  into  nothing  else.  Other  flora  will  receive  their  life 
principle  from  other  sources,  but  each  from  its  own  and  exclu¬ 
sive  source  and  will  develop  along  its  own  line  and  no  other.” 

9.  Everything  aetkr  its  Kind;  Studies  in  the  Animat 
Kingdom.  —  Likewise  in  the  animal  kingdom  the  same  phe¬ 
nomena  are  noticed.  There  are  five  hundred  species  of  trilo- 
bites  that  through  millions  of^ages,  v/hile  the  deposits  of  the 
paleozoic  era  were  forming,  not  only  brought  forth  each  after 
its  kind,  but  not  a  fossil  has  been  found  by  the  paleontologist 
indicating  that  a  single  individual  of  any  of  these  species  ever 
produced  anything  but  a  trilobite. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  nine  hundred  extinct  species 
of  the  ammonites,  of  the  four  hundred  of  the  nautilus  and  of 
the  seven  hundred  of  the  ganoids ;  among  these  species  there  is 
not  the  slightest  trace  of  any  deviation  from  the  law  that  each 
species  shall  bring  forth  “  after  its  kind.” 

And,  too,  this  law  is  just  as  operative  now  as  during  any 
of  the  millions  of  ages  past.  Man,  mammals  and  living  things, 

30 


the  most  inferior  and  most  minute  are  equally  the  subjects  of 
it.  From  a  wiggler  gnat  germ  comes  a  wiggler  gnat  and  noth¬ 
ing  else;  this  is  repeated  without  deviation  over  and  over 
again.  The  same  is  true  of  the  tadpole  and  frog;  neither  one 
nor  the  other  has  ever  been  known  to  break  from  the  family 
line. 

And  throughout  the  continuous  existence  of  the  deep-sea 
living  things,  reaching  back  perhaps  a  thousand  million  years, 
there  has  not  been  discovered,  either  in  the  upheaved  strata  of 
the  past  or  in  the  deep-sea  dredgings  of  the  present,  the  slight¬ 
est  deviation  from  the  law  announced  in  Genesis. 

But  more  than  this'.  As  is  well  known  the  scientific  world 
of  late  years  has  become  profoundly  interested  in  microscopic 
disease-producing  bacteria.  But  each  species  has  been  found 
not  only  to  produce  the  specific  disease  for  which  it  is  named, 
as  bacillus  tetanus,  bacillus  typosi,  bacillus  xerosis,  etc.,  but 
each  invariably  reproduces  its  own  kind.  Except  for  this, 
medical  science  to-day  would  be  in  direst  confusion.  And,  too, 
each  of  the  billions  of  bioplasts  that  construct  the  human 
body,  not  only  attends  strictly  to  its  own  business,  one  species 
forming  bone,  another  muscles,  another  brain  tissue,  etc.,  but 
no  bioplast  ever  violates  the  law  that  like  shall  produce  like. 
Indeed,  if  the  transmutation  of  species  among  bioplasts  were 
possible,  there  would  be  no  assurance  that  another  normal 
human  body  ever  would  or  ever  could  be  brought  into  exist¬ 
ence  or  be  kept  alive  for  a  single  day. 

And  what  renders  the  case  still  more  hopeless  for  the  evolu¬ 
tionist  is  the  recent  announcement  of  biological  science,  that: 
the  structureless  germ  of  one  species  of  plant  never  has  been 
and  never  can  be  changed  into  the  structureless  germ  of 

another,  much  less  into  that  of  an  animal;  and  that  the 

structureless  germ  of  one  species  of  animal  never  has  been 

and  never  can  be  changed  into  the  structureless  germ  of 

31 


another.  That  is,  structureless  g-enns  of  all  life  at  the  very 
threshold  of  their  creation,  or  formation,  are  as  immutable 
as  the  most  highly  organized  plants  and  animals  known  in 
natural  history. 

So  that  from  structureless  germs  up  to  the  most  complicated 
forms  of  organized  life,  and  from  first  to  last,  nature  at  every 
turn  of  the  way  takes  her  stand,  and  as  if  wielding  a  drawn 
sword  absolutely  forbids  the  transmutation  of  species. 

Such,  therefore,  are  the  facts  in  the  world  of  living  things, 
flora  and  fauna,  and  such  the  overwhelming  evidence  arrayed 
against  the  theory  of  the  transmutation  of  the  species  and  in 
support  of  the  law  that  clearly  marked  species  forever  shall 
be  kept  inviolate  and  distinct. 

lo.  Wriggling.  —  After  having  fruitlessly  searched  for 
missing  links  of  all  sorts,  and  for  other  evidences  of  transmu¬ 
tation,  it  is  amusingly  interesting  to  watch  the  evolutionist  in 
his  “  wriggling  ”  performances,  if  we  may  employ  a  term  Mr. 
Darwin  once  applied  to  Herbert  Spencer,  who  unquestionably 
was  a  master  in  that  art. 

(1)  The  Whale  Disposed  of.  —  This  water  mammal  has 
been  particularly  bothersome  to  the  evolutionist  because  there 
have  been  found  not  only  no  connecting  links  but  nothing  with 
which  to  make  connections.  In  fact,  the  evolutionist  is  about 
as  much  at  sea  as  is  the  whale,  not  being  able  to  determine 
whether  it  is  a  land  animal  developing  into  a  fish  or  a  fish  on 
the  way  of  becoming  a  land  animal ;  he,  therefore,  some  time 
ago  swallowed  the  whale  and  is  saying  nothing  more  about  it. 

This  case  is  cited,  as  the  reader  will  infer,  for  the  purpose  of 
illustrating  the  usual  method  employed  by  our  American  evo¬ 
lutionists  and  college  professors  when  trying  to  dispose  of 
bothersome  facts  —  they  wriggle,  gulp,  and,  whether  to  the 
point  or  not,  begin  talking  about  something  else. 

(2)  Demand  for  Missi}!^  U)iks  pronouneed  Unreason- 


able.  —  Links  between  tin  animals  and  footed  animals,  between 
reptiles  and  mammals,  also  l)etween  reptiles  and  birds,  between 
apes  and  men,  have  been  sought  with  the  most  untiring  and 
astounding  zeal,  but  none  are  found.  And  now  that  the  expec¬ 
tation  of  finding  any  is  well  nigh  abandoned,  the  wriggling  of 
the  evolutionist  is  vigorously  resorted  to. 

The  heliever  in  special  creations,  for  instance,  asks  to  be 
shown  the  connecting  links  upon  which  transmutation  depends. 
The  evolutionist  replies  that  the  demand  is  unreasonable  and 
that  the  one  who  makes  it  is  not  only  no  scientist,  Init  does  not 
know  what  evolution  is.  Such  in  substance  was  the  compla¬ 
cent  announcement  made  recently  by  a  popular  professor 
of  Cornell  University  before  the  Twentieth  Century  Club  of 
Boston. 

But  without  incurring  the  charge  of  ignorance,  or  incom¬ 
petence,  may  not  one  ask  why  the  demand  for  these  links  is 
unreasonable?  Or,  Jet  the  point  for  a  moment  be  pressed 
more  definitely. 

In  the  eozoon  or  dawn-of-life  period,  as  we  have  seen, 
there  were  living  things  that  are  still  extant.  Now,  if  evolu¬ 
tion  by  transmutation  is  true,  it  follows  that  some  of  those 
earliest  types  of  life  have  continued  to  produce  their  like,  while 
others,  having  essentially  the  same  conditions  and  environ¬ 
ments,  produced  those  that  are  unlike  themselves.  In  other 
words,  we  have  this  remarkable  phenomenon,  —  some  eozoon 
parents  have  been  producing  eozoon  offspring  in  unbroken 
succession  for  millions  of  ages,  while  other  eozoon  parents 
gave  birth  to  Polyps,  Acalephs,  Echinoderms,  Acephala,  Gas¬ 
teropoda,  Cephalopoda  atid  worms  ;  and  some  of  these  in  turn 
kept  on,  each  producing  its  own  kind  while  others  produced 
in  endless  variety  the  Radiates,  Mollusks,  and  Articulates,  all 
existing  in  the  same  waters  and  at  the  same  time.  And  so 
upward  through  the  numerous  families  of  the  lower  verte- 


brates  to  the  highest.  All  these  varieties,  according  to  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution,  liave  taken  place  in  the  descendants  of 
some  eozoons  while  others  have  continued  till  now  without 
the  slightest  change,  and  not  a  link  connecting  these  different 
families  is  anywhere  to  be  found.  With  these  facts  clearly 
before  one,  is  it  quite  the  thing  for  a  college  professor  when 
asked  to  explain  these  phenomena  tO'  wriggle  and  reply  that 
the  question  is  unreasonable  and  that  the  one  who  asks  it  is  no 
scientist  and  does  not  understand  what  evolution  is? 

(3)  Explanation  of  how  Links  become  Missing.  —  The 
impression  should  not  be  left  that  no  attempt  has  been,  made 
by  evolutionists  and  scientists  to  account  for  missing  links. 
There  are  students  of  nature  who'  frankly  acknowledge  the 
validity  of  the  demand  for  missing  links  and  when  ques¬ 
tioned  offer  the  following  explanation ;  If  species  X  is  trans¬ 
muted  into  species  Y,  then  there  must  have  been  one  or  many 
species  Z,  that  were  neither  X  nor  Y.  Now  these  intermedi¬ 
ate  Z  species  would  be  neither  normal  X  species,  nor  normal 
Y  species.  But  since  all  abnormal  species,  or  forms,  are  less 
able  to  survive  than  normal  ones,  it  follows  that  there  would 
be  an  early  death  of  the  individual  Z  forms,  and  speedily 
would  follow  the  extinction  of  the  intermediate  families  and 
species  belonging  tO'  the  Z  group.® 

And  this  is  the  explanation  offered  for  the  disappearance 
of  those  connections  known  as  missing*  links! 

To  speak  with  perfect  plainness,  it  is  this  sort  of  wriggling 
that  brings  science  and  scientific  men  into  contempt. 

But  failing  in  efforts  to  account  for  the  absence  of  links, 
a  few  naturalists  have  frankly  conceded  that  there  are  none 
and  never  have  been ;  that  new  species  come  from  previously 
existing  ones  through  a  rapid,  perhaps  instantaneous,  trans¬ 
formation  by  processes  not  yet  understood.  In  other  words, 
all  new  species  are  eruptive,  hence  connecting  links  are  entirely 

34 


unnecessary.  This,  however,  comes  near  being  a  fatal  admis¬ 
sion,  for  by  it  the  foundations  of  evolution  through  organic 
connections  are  not  only  loosened  at  every  point  and  from  top 
to  bottom,  but  special  creation  receives  additional  support  and 
from  a  source  quite  unexpected. 

(4)  The  Evolution  of  Man.  —  Man  is  now  on  earth,  but 
how  on  earth  he  got  here  has  bothered  the  evolutionist  perhaps 
no  less  than  the  coming  of  the  whale  into  the  oceans. 

That  man  is  a  direct  or  progressive  evolution  from  the 
monkey,  a  theory  once  popular,  is  no  longer  held..  Professor 
Osker  Peschel,  in  his  “  Races  of  Man,”  has  conclusively  shown 
that  the  anatomy  of  the  monkey  is  such  that  the  more  it  is 
developed  the  more  of  a  monkey  and  the  less  of  a  man  it 
becomes. 

It  is  at  this  point,  too,  that  the  evolutionist  is  able  to  display 
his  remarkable  skill  and  nimbleness  at  wriggling. 

Professor  N.  C.  Macnamara,  for  illustration,  explains  the 
relation  between  men  and  monkeys  tlius  :  —  ' 

‘‘  Man  and  cUithropoid  apes  we  hold  to  be  derived  from  a 
common  ancestral  stock;  the  former,  under  the  action  of 
natural  selection  and  other  causes,  including,  I  think,  not  only 
an  inherent  capacity  of  cerebral  but  also  of  cranial  growtli, 
have  gradually  developed,  whereas  anthropoid  apes,  from 
arrest  of  cranial  and  cerebral  growth,  have  not  reached  the 
standard  attained  by  human  beings ;  the  difference  between 
these  two  orders  of  beings,  however,  is  one  of  degree,  and  not 
of  kind.” 

Science  !  Is  this  what  is  called  science,  these  speculations 
that  may  amuse  children  but  have  in  their  support  no  shadow 
of  fact  nor  reason.  From  a  clergyman’s  point  of  view  the  fore¬ 
going  paragraphs  are  far  from  being  first-class  wriggling. 
They  fall  considerably  below  the  specimen  given  by  a  very 
estimable  professor  of  Yale,  who  explains  the  origin  of  man 
thus :  — 


35 


“  Animal  life  uii  this  continent  de\  eloped  no  higher  than 
the  South  American  monkeys.  The  Old  W^orld  current  dev-el- 
oped  into  the  anthropoid  ape,  and  then,  by  a  colossal  accident, 
into  Man.” 

Colossal  what?  Colossal  nonsense! 


V. 


EMERGENCE  OE  HUMANITY  EROM  ITS  BRUTE 

BEGINNING. 


Another  claim  made  by  the  evolutionist,  one  that  is  quite 
essential  to  the  successful  maintenance  of  the  most  important 
phase  of  his  theory,  is  that  the  human  race,  after  its  emergence 
from  lower  animals,  began  its  career  not  much  above  the  level 
of  the  brute,  and  through  countless  ages  has  been  working  its 
way  up  ever  since  to  its  present  state  of  civilized  life.*’ 

After  having  found  the  previous  claims  of  the  evolutionist 
destitute  of  scientific  support,  it  cannot  be  expected  that 
thoughtful  men  will  accept  this  additional  assertion  without 
asking"  for  evidence  in  support  of  it.  In  other  words  one  is 
justified  in  demanding  facts  before  accepting  this  or  any  other 
theory  on  the  say-so  even  of  men  who  hold  university  pro¬ 
fessorships  and  who  seem  to  have  vast  knowledge  and  ability 
to  express  themselves  in  exceedingly  learned  phraseology. 

I.  Disclosures  of  Archeology  and  History. —  It  is 
found  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  peoples  of  whom  there  is  the 
earliest  historic  account  were  not  as  has  been  claimed  low 
down  but  were  high  up.  The  Egyptians  builded  immense 
cities,  invented  systems  of  astronomy  and  writing,  constructed 
a  time  calendar,  founded  schools  of  law  and  medicine,  gathered 
extensive  libraries  and  did  other  things  in  ways  that  people  of 
the  present  generation  are  unable  to  do.  And  there  were  other 
nationalities  of  equal  antiquity,  possibly  of  earlier  date,  who 

36 


were  no  less  civilized,  notably  those  who  budded  their  great 
cities  in  the  Babylonian  valley.  The  W'olf  Expedition,  led  by 
Dr.  William  Hayes  Ward,  and  notably  the  excavations  under 
Professor  Hilprecht  in  the  Xippur  region,  going  back  three 
and  four  thousand  years  B.  C.,  ha^'e  put  a  complete  negative 
ujK>n  all  assertions  as  to  the  degraded  conditions  of  those 
primitive  people.  And,  too,  other  explorations  have  brought 
to  light  hundreds  of  tablets  showing  that  there  were  in  those 
Euphrates  and  Tigris  valleys,  nearly  three  thousand  years 
before  the  founding  of  Rome  and  two  thousand  before  Abra¬ 
ham  left  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  great  business  activity,  peaceful 
diplomatic,  international  relations  and  complicated  private 
life,  that  afford  unassailable  evidence  of  high  civilization. 

'/hese  discoveries  impress  one  especially  by  reason  of  the 
broad  range  of  subjects  that  engaged  the  thoughts  of  the 
people  who  lived  in  those  times  —  the  earliest  of  which  there  is 
any  record  —  a  range  that  compares  favorably  with  systems 
of  study  now  pursued  by  civilized  nations.  Aside  from  mere 
liistorical  writings  there  were  dehnite  problems  of  history 
stated  and  expounded ;  there  were  theories  and  speculations 
in  astronomy  and  astrology :  there  were  measurably  systematic 
treatises  on  geography,  jurisprudence  and  theology;  there 
were  treatises  on  architecture,  with  plans  and  ornamentation 
for  buildings,  and  on  applied  mechanics  and  sculpture.  And 
what  is  esj>ecially  noteworthy  is  the  fact  that  these  various  tab¬ 
lets  were  arranged,  classihed  and  catalogued  the  same  as  in 
modern  libraries,  as  if  designed  for  everyday  use  and  for  a 
large  number  of  readers.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  such  in¬ 
tellectual  enterprise  must  have  had  a  much  earlier  background 
of  civilization  and  knowledge  than  that  of  the  period  when 
these  tablets  were  written  and  catalogued.  The  Augustan  age 
and  the  Elizabethan  era  did  not  shine  out  from  a  totally  black 
night  that  immediately  preceded. 

37 


Nor  are  we  destitute  of  other  evidences  of  civilization.  In 
Crete,  as  early  as  four  thousand  years  before  the  Christian 
^era,  there  were  royal  palaces  having  sanitary  conditions  supe¬ 
rior  to  those  in  any  city  of  America  until  within  comparatively 
few  years.  Indeed,  it  is  gradually  dawning  upon  the  minds  of 
Avell-informed  people,  that,  in  the  most  primitive  times  of 
which  there  is  any  record,  man  enjoyed  a  degree  of  civilization 
not  surpassed  in  any  period  of  the  world’s  history  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  last  century. 

2.  Decadence  among  Mankind.  —  But  what  tells  even 
more  fatally  against  the  assertion  of  evolutionists,  that  man 
has  worked  his  way  up  from  a  savage  state  in  which  he  is  said 
to  have  originated,  are  the  almost  innumerable  and  certainly 
unmistakable  proofs  of  decivilization  and  decadence  rather 
than  progress.  Southern  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  Central  and 
South  America  abound  in  such  evidence.  The  marble  palaces 
and  high  attainments  of  those  primitive  peoples  in  the  course 
of  centuries  have  given  way  to  the  mud-walled  hovels  and 
wretchedness  now  everywhere  met  by  the  traveller.  The 
degraded  Fellaheen  of  Egypt  are  the  descendants  of  the  men 
who  built  the  gigantic  pyramids.  If,  therefore,  progress  is  the 
claim,  then  regress  is  the  counter  claim.  In  other  words,  the 
fall  downward  of  these  people  is  more  strikingly  evident  than 
the  fall  or  climb  upward. 

3.  Philology,  Comparative  Religion,  and  Codes  oe 
Ethics.  —  Or,  taking*  into  view  other  fields  of  research,  the 
case  against  the  evolutionist  grows  stronger  and  stronger.  It 
is  now  acknowledged  by  linguists  that  if  philological  science 
clearly  demonstrates  anything  it  is  that  primitive  tongues,  in 
almost  every  instance,  disclose  a  background  of  high  civiliza¬ 
tion  and  bear  an  unmistakable  impress  of  descent,  rather  than 
ascent.  By  way  of  illustration,  take  the  name  of  the  beautiful 
New  Hampshire  lake,  Winnepesaukee,  whose  meaning  is  the 

38 


Smile  of  the  Great  Spirit.  Here  in  this  word  alone  is  disclosed 
the  fact  that  the  ancestors  of  the  untutored  savage,  back  some¬ 
where  in  the  family  line,  had  well-defined  ideas  of  the  beautiful, 
were  monotheists,  believing  in  a  Supreme  Being  who  has  a 
fatherly  heart  and  who  at  times,  with  a  benignant  smile,  looks 
upon  his  children. 

vSo,  too,  the  science  of  comparative  religion,  at  almost  every 
point,  furnishes  damaging  evidence  against  the  assumptions  of 
the  evolutionist. 

Professor  Schlegel  reached  a  conclusion  that  since  his  day 
has  been  concurred  in  by  all  workers  in  this  field  of  research : 
‘‘The  more  I  investigate  ancient  history,  the  more  I  am  con¬ 
vinced  that  the  nations  set  out  from  a  true  worship  of  the 
Supreme  Being.’’ 

And  the  earliest  ethical  codes  that  have  been  discovered, 
those  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  and  Babylonians,  in  loftiness 
and  purity,  quite  put  to  blush  modern  systems  of  ethics  except 
where  Bible  revelation  has  come  in  touch  with  the  people.  In 
a  word,  every  discovery  during  the  last  twenty-five  or  more 
years  in  these  different  fields  of  investigation  and  learning, 
those  of  geology,  history,  archaeology,  anatomy,  philology, 
ethics,  and  religion,  have  demonstrated  the  fact  that  so  far  as 
is  known,  the  first  beings  on  earth  who  wore  the  human  form 
were  not  brutes,  nor  even  barbarians,  as  evolutionists  tell  us, 
but  had  bodies  just  as  perfect,  brains  or  intellects  just  as 
capable  of  working  and  languages  just  as  complete  in  express¬ 
ing  thought,  as  those  of  any  people  now  living.  These  are 
conclusions  based  upon  established  facts  and  reached  by 
approved  scientific  methods  rather  than  that  lecture  room, 
platform  and  pulpit  guesswork  that  for  a  decade  has  had  full 
sway  —  guesswork,  boldly  venturesome,  somewhat  ingenu¬ 
ous,  but  absolutely  destitute  of  any  valuable  results. 


39 


VI. 

THE  AGE  OF  HUMANITY. 

Nor  should  the  correlated  assertion  of  the  evolutionist  that 
the  human  family  has  been  on  earth  “  countless  ages  ”  be 
received  as  an  established  fact  until  brought  under  the  search¬ 
light  of  scientific  investigation. 

There  have  been,  it  is  true,  many  speculations  as  to  the  long 
duration  of  human  history.  With  some  show  of  reason  Pro¬ 
fessor  Lyell  in  his  day  argued  that  two  hundred  thousand 
years  at  least  should  be  allowed  for  human  life  on  earth. 
Professor  Thomas  Sterry  Hunt,  from  biological  and  evolu¬ 
tionary  points  of  view,  advanced  the  opinion  that  man  has  been 
on  earth  not  fewer  than  nine  million  years.  But  M.  Lalande, 
a  French  astronomer,  out-estimated  them  all,  for,  not  being 
able  to  think  of  any  way,  scientifically,  for  starting  the  human 
family,  he  reached  the  conclusion  that  man  was  not  started  at 
all  and  therefore  is  eternal. 

I.  Former  Theories  x\bandoned.  —  The  facts,  however, 
are  now  found  to  be  against  even  the  lowest  of  these  estimates. 

Within  the  last  decade,  as  our  readers  scarcely  need  be  told, 
the  entire  drift  of  reputable  scientific  opinion  is  in  favor  of 
bringing  the  origin  of  the  human  race  within  easy  hailing 
distance.  Professor  H.  W.  Haynes,  a  careful  investigator,  and 
leading  American  geologist,  within  a  few  months  has  made 
this  sitatement :  ‘‘The  evidence  for  the  antiquity  of  man  on 
the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  purely  speculative,  no  human 
remains  having  as  yet  been  found  in  either  the  miocene  or 
pliocene  strata.'’  “  The  miocene  man,”  says  Professor  Le- 
Conte,  “is  not  at  present  acknowledged  by  a  single  careful 
geologist.”  M.  Reinach,  a  specialist  in  geology  and  author  of 
“  La  Prehistoriqiic”  recently  published,  affirms  that  there  are 
no  traces  of  man  anywhere  in  the  tertiary  period,  which  brings 
us  to  the  threshold  of  historic  times. 


40 


Twenty  or  twciity-li\e  years  ago  it  was  quite  the  fashion  to 
assume  that  hiinian  remains  and  relics  found  in  the  west 
L  nited  States,  especially  those  in  California  and  Kansas,  are 
co-nclusive  evidence  of  the  high  antiquity  of  man.  But  during 
the  year  1903,  a  thorough  reinvestigation,  conducted  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  Holmes,  aided  by  a  special  grant  of  money  provided  by 
the  Carnegie  Institution,  was  made  of  the  caves  of  Indiana, 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Virginia,  Maryland  and  Penn¬ 
sylvania.  The  result  of  these  latest  studies  is  given  in  the 
following  statement  of  Professor  Holmes :  —  “  There  is  no 
evidence  at  all  to  prove  that  man  is  very  ancient  on  this  con¬ 
tinent.  All  ascertained  facts  seem  to  point  to  the  conclusion 
that  no  human  being  preceded  the  Indians  in  America.  Where 
the  Indian  came  from  is  uncertain,  but  their  straight  black 
hair,  their  peculiar  physiognomy  and  other  physical  traits 
show^  that  they  are  surely  derived  from  the  same  ancestry  as 
the  Asiatic  Mongols.  There  is  nothing  whatever  to  show  that 
man  has  been  in  x\merica  longer  than  four,  or  five,  thousand 
years  at  the  utmost. 

2.  Man's  Appearance  and  the  Ice  Age.  —  Professor 
Ed\vard  Hall,  secretary  of  the  Victoria  Institute  of  London,  a 
specialist  on  these  matters,  in  a  recent  announcement,  .June, 
1903,  says:  “Not  in  one  single  case  in  the  whole  of  Euro])e 
or  America  has  a  trace  of  man’s  existence  been  found  below' 
the  only  deposits  wdiich  we  have  a  right  to  assume  were  devel¬ 
oped  and  produced  by  the  great  ice  sheets  of  the  early  glacial 
])eriods.”  This  opinion  is  concurred  in  by  Professors  Haynes, 
LeConte,  Boyd,  C.  H.  Dawkins,  Dr.  Gandry,  John  Evans,  W. 
H.  Holmes,  M.  Favre  and  others.  Granting,  therefore,  that 
man  did  not  appear  until  after  the  climax  of  the  ice  age,  a  fact 
at  present  as  well  established  as  any  other  in  geology,  and  fol¬ 
lowing  the  lead  of  experts  as  to  the  date  of  that  age,  there  can 

be  fixed  pretty  accurately  the  beginning  of  the  human  family. 

4P 


Professor  G.  F.  Wright,  who  has  given  almost  a  lifetime  to 
this  and  kindred  subjects  and  who  has  the  unchallenged  reputa¬ 
tion  of  being  one  of  the  ablest  glaciologists  in  this  country, 
has  reached  the  conclusion  that  it  ended  not  earlier  than  from 
seven  to  ten  thousand  years  ago.  Professor  Joseph  Prestwich 
collected  much  evidence  showing  that  the  close  of  the  glacial 
jieriod  falls  within  the  limit  of  twelve  thousand  years.  The 
opinion  of  M.  Adhemar  and  Dr.  James  Croll  is  that  it  closed 
not  earlier  than  eleven  thousand  years  ago.  Professor  R. 
D.  Salisbury  and  Dr.  Warren  Upham,  among  the  most  recent 
of  American  geologists,  think  that  from  seven  to  ten  thousand 
years  is  a  fair  estimate.  In  a  review  article  (1904),  this 
last-named  scientist,  speaking  of  the  post-glacial  era,  says 
that,  “From  the  studies  of  Niagara  by  Wright  and  myself, 
coinciding  approximately  with  the  estimate  of  Winchell  and 
with  a  large  number  of  estimates  and  computations  collected 
by  Hanson  from  many  observers  in  America  and  Europe,  it 
certainly  seems  well  demonstrated  that  this  period  (post¬ 
glacial)  is  between  seven  and  ten  thousand  years.”  Dr.  Wil¬ 
liam  Andrews  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  ice  age,  though 
lingering  still  in  Alaska,  in  Greenland  and  on  the  mountain 
plateaus  of  Norway,  was  completed  nearly  as  it  now  is  “  not 
further  awav  than  from  five  to  seven  thousand  five  hundred 
years  ago.” 

The  words  of  Professor  Winchell  are  not  only  confirmatory, 
but  graphic  and  suggestive:  “Man  has  no^  place  till  after  the 
reign  of  ice.  It  has  been  imagined  that  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  ice  dates  back  perhaps  a  hundred  thousand  years.  There 
is  no  evidence  of  this.  The  fact  is  that  we  ourselves  came 
upon  the  earth  in  time  to  witness  the  retreat  of  the  glaciers. 
They  still  linger  in  the  valleys  of  the  Alps  and  along  the 
northern  shores  of  Europe  and  Asia.  The  fact  is  we  are  not 
so  far  out  of  the  dust,  chaos  and  barbarism  of  antiquity  as  we 

42 


had  supposed.  The  very  beginnings  of  oiir  race  are  still  almost 
in  sight.  Geological  events  which,  from  the  force  of  habit  in 
considering  them,  we  had  imagined  to  be  located  far  back  in 
the  history  of  things  are  found  to  have  transpired  at  our  very 
doors.”  ' 

3.  Scientific  Mixup.  —  Now,  let  it  be  kept  in  mind  that, 
on  this  subject,  these  are  not  “forty-year-old  opinions,”  but 
are  among  the  very  latest  and  most  indisputable  utterances  of 
scientists  whose  high  standing  is  unquestioned.  It  turns  out, 
therefore,  that  in  place  of  the  now  abandoned  estimates  of 
man’s  great  antiquity  there  stands  the  absolutely  assured  fact 
that  his  arrival  on  earth  was  not  much,  if  any,  earlier  than  the 
historic  dates  given  in  the  Bible.  If,  therefore,  a  scientific 
theory  ever  has  been  cornered,  this  of  the  evolutionist,  as  to 
the  beginning  and  development  of  the  human  race,  is  at  the 
present  moment  in  that  plight.  The  case  is  this  :  —  The  biolo¬ 
gist  requires  not  fewer  than  a  million  years  (Haeckel’s  esti¬ 
mate  is  a  thousand  million)  to  evolve  man  from  the  lower 
forms  of  organized  life,  and  not  fewer  than  several  hundred 
thousand  years  to  lift  him  out  of  the  brute  condition  from 
which,  according  to  evolutionists,  he  has  been  developed.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  latest  geologists  have  established  the  fact 
that  not  more  than  twelve  or  fifteen  thousand  years,  as  an  out¬ 
side  limit,  can  be  allowed  for  the  entire  life  on  earth  of  any 
being  that  has  worn  a  human  form.  Here,  therefore,  in  these 
two  departments  of  knowledge,  those  of  biology  and  geology, 
is  a  tremendous  mixup.  But  what  renders  the  case  still  more 
complicated  and  hopeless  for  the  evolutionist  are  those  recent 
archceological  finds  from  Asia,  Africa  and  Southern  Europe. 
They  make  it  clear  as  daylight,  that  from  six  to  eight  thousand 
years  ago  there  were  already  on  earth  perfectly  developed 
human  races  living  a  highly  cultivated  and  social  life.  So  there 
is  left  for  the  development  of  humanity  not  a  billion,  nor  a 

43 


million,  nor  even  two  hundred  thousand  years,  hut  only  five 
thousand  at  the  outside.  In  other  words,  the  human  race,  that 
from  biological  and  physiological  points  of  view  has  made  no 
perceptible  advance  in  the  last  six  thousand  years,  and  in  no 
other  respect  has  made  remarkable  gains,  except  when  revealed 
religion  directly  or  indirectly  has  been  a  help  and  inspiration, 
did,  however,  in  the  preceding  five  thousand  years,  though 
starting  on  the  lowest  plane  imaginable,  become  thoroughly 
civilized.  That  is,  beginning  without  revealed  religion,  with¬ 
out  science,  without  philosophy,  without  art,  without  literature, 
without  intelligence,  without  conscience,  without  God  and 
without  anything  above  a  mere  animal  nature,  the  human  race 
in  those  comparatively  few  years  forged  ahead  from  its  brute 
beginnings,  if  we  may  believe  evolutionists,  to  the  remarkable 
achievements  of  those  Egyptian,  Babylonian,  Cretan  and  other 
civilizations  that  are  the  wonder  of  all  explorers. 

What  a  marvel !  In  that  brief  time  man  developed  not 
only  a  perfect  physical  organism,  but  intellect,  conscience, 
language,  literature,  codes  of  law,  ethics,  religion,  art  and 
science. 

Talk  about  miracles!  The  resurrection  of  the  dead,  as  a 
wonder,  falls  immensely  below  this  speedy  upshoot  of  the 
human  family  from  the  degradation  to  which  the  theory  of 
evolutionists  has  consigned  it. 

No  greater  absurdity  than  such  an  evolution  can  be  imag¬ 
ined.  They  are,  therefore,  these  recent  scientific  investigations 
and  discoveries  that  have  doomed  the  arrogant  edifice  of 
evolution. 

The  biologist  knocks  out  most  of  its  underpinning,  the  geol¬ 
ogist  demolishes  the  larger  remaining  part,  and  the  archaeolo¬ 
gist  finishes  it. 

One  is  forcibly  reminded  in  all  this  of  what  Professor  Hux¬ 
ley  said  about  the  tragedies  of  science  and  philosophy  (and  he 

44 


inigiil  have  added  those  of  history  as  well),  by  wliich  he  meant 
the  slaying  of  beautiful  and  speculative  theories  by  ugly  and 
what  he  called  “  provokingly  unreasonable  facts."  And  it  is 
([uestionable  if  any  theory  in  the  history  of  science  has  been 
any  more  completely  and  tragically  used  up  by  provokingly 
unreasonable  facts  than  the  theory  of  evolution ;  and  in  saying 
this  there  is  not  meant  Darwinism,  or  any  given  process  of 
evolution,  whether  that  of  natural  selection,  survival  of  the 
fittest,  or  some  other,  but  evolution  as  taught  in  our  American 
schools,  colleges  and  universities.'* 


VII. 

SCHOLARS  AND  EVOLUTION. 

I.  All  Scholars  said  to  bl  Evolutionists.  —  From 
what  is  heard  repeated  over  and  over  again,  one  might  be  led 
to  think  that  scholarly  men,  men  of  science  and  the  world’s 
philosophers,  are  all  evolutionists,  and  that  those  who  question 
the  hypothesis  are  afflicted  “with  leprosy  of  incompetence,"  or 
are  “  the  mental  slaves  of  effete  traditions,”  or,  “  a  howling 
pack  of  antediluvians.” 

The  professor  already  mentioned,  the  one  from  Cornell, 
while  criticising  in  the  presence  of  a  Boston  audience  the 
American  Bible  League  Convention  held  in  that  city  (Decem¬ 
ber,  1904),  after  defining  evolution  to  be  “  the  quest  for  truth,” 
and  after  announcing  his  belief  “  that  all  organic  life  has  come 
from  one  starting-point,  and  that  every  living  thing  is  a  modi¬ 
fication  of  the  life  stem,  formed  and  changed  by  the  ever- 
increasing  struggle  for  existence,”  with  the  utmost  assurance 
and  complacency  told  his  hearers  that  “  evolution  is  accepted 
by  all  scientists  and  publicists,”  .  .  .  that  “  attacks  upon  the 
theory  are  made  only  by  persons  who  are  not  familiar  with 
either  the  evolution  hypothesis  or  the  facts  of  natural  history, 

.45 


that  they  misunderstand  and  misinterpret  what  evolution  is," 

.  .  .  that  “  they  confuse  evolution  and  Darwinism,”  and  that 
'‘the  attacks  are  made  for  the  purpose  of  bolstering-  up  dogmas 
and  beliefs.” 

Now,  all  this  is  very  interesting,  especially  to  those  who  are 
pilloried  by  the  professor,  and  the  information  given  appears 
to  have  been  much  enjoyed  by  the  Twentieth  Century  Club, 
that  is  supposed  to  represent  a  high  degree  of  culture  and 
refinement. 

2.  Scholarship  and  Narrowness.  —  Now,  the  trouble 
with  many  of  our  university  professors  and  their  following  is 
that  they  are  indisposed  to  look  beyond  their  own  window  sills 
and  are  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  make  broad,  generous 
and  really  scientific  inductions.  They  remind  one  of  a  saying 
of  Martineau :  —  “  The  history  of  knowledge  abounds  with 
instances  of  men  who,  with  the  highest  merit  in  particular 
walks  of  science,  have  combined  a  curious  incompetency  when 
attempting  a  survey  of  the  whole  field.” 

3.  Naturalists  are  proposing  no  Better  Scheme  than 
Darwin^S.  —  The  Twentieth  Century  Club  was  also  told  that 
“  the  Darwinian  type  of  evolution  has  been  abandoned  by  all 
scientific  men.”  This  announcement,  of  course,  is  pleasing  to 
orthodox  people  who  never  have  believed  the  theory,  but  one 
scarcely  can  refrain  from  adding  that,  so  far  as  the  methods 
or  processes  of  evolution  are  concerned,  there  has  been  as  yet 
no  better  one  proposed  than  that  of  Mr.  Darwin.  Is  it  not 
rather  ungracious,  therefore,  for  evolutionists  tO'  kick  and 
desert  Mr.  Darwin,  who  spent  a  lifetime  of  thought  and  work 
in  their  behalf,  especially  when  they  are  unable  to  offer  aii}^ 
substitute  for  his  abandoned  theory  of  descent?  And  we  may 
repeat  what  already  has  been  hinted,  that  the  moment  God  is 
admitted  as  a  working  factor  in  creative  processes  and  the 

moment  organic  connections  and  transmutations,  the  survivals 

46  . 


of  the  fittest  and  the  natural  selection  of  Mr.  Darwin,  Mr. 
Spencer  and  others,  are  ruled  out  of  the  equation,  that  moment 
there  is  left  nothing  in  the  theory  of  evolution  that  in  any 
sense  of  the  word  can  be  called  evolutionary,  nor  is  there  any^ 
thing  left  that  can  be  recognized  as  scientific  or  philosophical. 
In  other  words,  if  Science  has  nO'  facts,  and  certainly  she  has 
not,  to  disprove  the  orthodox  view  that  the  first  monkey  was 
a  monkey  and  nothing  else,  and  that  the  last  one  will  be  the 
same;  that  the  first  man  was  a  man  and  nothing  else,  and  that 
the  last  one  will  be  the  same,  and  if  this  is  true  of  other  forms 
of  life  as  well,  then  what  essential  or  fundamental  difference 
is  there  between  Darwinism  and  any  scheme  of  evolution  that 
may  be  or  can  be  proposed  ? 

4.  The  Ablest  Scientists  and  Evolution.  —  But  re¬ 
turning  to  the  assertion  that  scholarly  men  and  others  of  high 
standing  are  all  evolutionists,  we  are  compelled  to  dissent  — 
even  to  saying*  that  the  exact  opposite  is  true.  The  most  thor¬ 
ough  scholars,  the  world’s  ablest  philosophers  and  scientists, 
with  few  exceptions,  are  not  supporters,  but  assailants  of 
evolution. 

We  are  a  little  behind  the  times  on  these  questions  in  this 
country  as  compared  with  England,  France  and  German}^ 
though  ahead  in  almost  everything  else. 

But  the  reactionary  ball  has  been  set  in  motion  even  among 
us,  and  within  the  next  five  years  the  field  will  be  full  of  kick¬ 
ers,  not  against  Darwinism  alone,  but  against  every  other 
theory  of  evolution  that  involves  ascent  or  descent  through 
transmutation  of  species,  for  the  kicking  of  a  thing  that  is 
down  is  easy  and  always  popular.  Dr.  N.  S.  Shaler,  professor 
of  geology  in  Harvard  University,  eminent  as  a  scientist,  writ¬ 
ing  recently  for  the  “  International  Quarterly,”  Dec. -March, 
1902-1903,  has  started  in  with  a  cautious  but  fairly  good 
touch-down.  “  It  begins  tO'  be  evident  to  naturalists,”  he  says, 

47 


“  that  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  is  still  essentially  unverified. 
Notwithstanding  the  evidence  derived  from  the  study  of  ani¬ 
mals  and  plants  under  domestication,  it  is  not  yet  proved  that 
a  single  species  of  the  two  or  three  millions  now  inhabiting  the 
earth  had  been  established  solely,  or  mainly,  by  the  operation 
of  natural  selection.’’ 

Professor  C.  C.  Everett,  also  of  Harvard,  though  better 
drilled  in  literature  than  science,  is  such  a  careful  observer 
and  extensive  reader  that  his  late  words  may  be  allowed  con¬ 
siderable  weight.  Speaking  of  evolution  he  says :  —  “If  in  the 
past  those  ranks  of  beings  ever  rose  and  moved  in  procession 
along  the  upward  slope,  each  passing,  by  no  matter  how  slow 
a  step,  out  of  its  own  limitations,  and  in  itself,  or  in  its  poster¬ 
ity  entered  upon  a  larger  life,  it  was  before  the  eyes  of  man 
were  opened  to  them.  No  searching  of  his  awakened  powers 
can  detect,  even  among  the  remains  of  an  unknown  antiquitv, 
any  glimpse  of  the  great  movement  while  in  progress  of  accom¬ 
plishment.  All,  as  he  looks  upon  it,  is  as  fixed  as  the  sphinx, 
that  slumbers  on  the  Egyptian  sands.  All  this  story  of  trans¬ 
formation  and  activity  is  a  dream.” 

Of  earlier  date  such  men  as  Louis  Agassiz,  Joseph  Henry, 
John  William  Dawson  and  Arnold  Guyot  pronounced  evolu¬ 
tion  false  and  unscientific. 

Crossing  the  ocean  we  hear  words  that  are  much  more 
emphatic. 

Dr.  Etheridge,  of  the  British  Museum,  one  of  England’s 
most  famous  experts  in  fossilology,  has  passed  the  following 
criticism  upon  evolution :  “  In  all  this  great  museum  there  ii< 
not  a  particle  of  evidence  of  transmutation  of  species.  Nine- 
tenths  of  the  talk  of  evolutionists  is  sheer  nonsense,  not 
founded  on  observation  and  wholly  unsupported  by  fact.  This 
museum  is  full  of  proofs  of  the  utter  falsity  of  their  views.” 

Professor  Lionel  S.  Beale,  physiologist,  and  professor  of 

48 


anatomy  aiul  pathology  in  Kings  College,  London,  stands  to¬ 
day  with  Lord  Kelvin  at  the  head  of  English  scientists,  and  in 
his  special  field,  that  of  biology,  is  with  one  exception,  perhaps, 
without  a  peer  in  any  country  of  the  world.  While  addressing 
the  Victoria  Institute  of  London,  June,  1903,  Professor  Beale 
employed  these  words :  “  The  idea  of  any  relation  having  been 
established  between  the  non-living  and  living,  by  a  gradual 
advance  from  lifeless  matter  to  the  lowest  forms  of  life  and  so 
onwards  to  the  higher  and  more  complex,  has  not  the  slightest 
evidence  from  the  facts  of  any  section  of  living  nature  of  which 
anything  is  known.  There  is  no  evidence  that  man  has 
descended  from,  or  is,  or  was,  in  any  way  specially  related  to, 
any  other  organism  in  nature  through  evolution  or  by  any 
other  process.  In  support  of  all  naturalistic  conjectures  con¬ 
cerning  man’s  origin,  there  is  not  at  this  time  a  shadow  of 
scientific  evidence.” 

It  is  well  known  that  French  scientists  as  a  rule  have  at  no 
time  been  captivated,  by  evolutionary  theories  and  especially 
never  have  taken  kindly  to  Mr.  Darwin’s  views.  As  repre- 
sentatives  of  recent  French  thought  no  one  will  object  to  the 
.Marquis  de  Nadaillac,  whose  articles  have  appeared  in  the 
Revue  des  Questions  Scientifiques,  or  to  M.  Stanislas  Meunier 
of  the  Paris  Museum.  The  marquis  quite  ridicules  the  many 
unsupported  assumptions  employed  to  support  the  general  the¬ 
ory  of  evolution,  and  especially  the  evolution  of  man  from  any 
lower  type  of  animal  life.  After  admitting  that  no  one  can  tell 
what  may  be  the  future  of  evolution  he  hastens  to  add  that 
he  is  entirely  unprepared  to  affirm  that  there  is  at  present  any 
truth  in  it. 

In  the  Revue  Scieiitidqiies  (Dec.,  1903),  Meunier  not  only 
antagonizes  all  theories  of  the  chemical  or  mechanical  origin 
of  life  and  the  transformation  of  species,  but  argues  in  favor 
of  special  creations  by  an  infinite  ])Ower.  His  paper  closes 

49 


thus :  ‘‘  Doubtless  we  cannot  usefully  risk  any  hypothesis  oil 
the  mechanism  of  the  production  of  living  things;  but  it  is 
perhaps  a  step  in  advance  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
cause  of  life  and  its  manifestations  on  the  earth  is  exterior  to 
the  earth  and  that  it  is  anterior  to  our  world.” 

Passing  from  France  to  Germany,  it  is  found  that  the  light 
is  dawning  fast,  though  professors  in  Chicago,  a  city  claiming 
to  stand  at  the  head  of  all  advanced  learning,  and  professors 
in  Boston,  a  city  once  thought  to  be  the  center  of  every  kind 
of  wisdom,  appear  to  be  ignorant  of  it. 

The  late  Professor  Virchow,  of  Berlin,  the  highest  German 
authority  in  physiology,  and  “  the  foremost  chemist  on  the 
globe,”  at  one  time  a  pronounced  advocate  of  Darwin’s  and 
Haeckel’s  views,  subsequently,  in  his  famous  lecture  on  “  Free* 
dom  of  Science,”  while  speaking  of  evolution  made  this  state¬ 
ment  :  ‘Ht  is  all  nonsense.  It  cannot  be  proved  by  science  that 
man  descends  from  the  ape  or  from  any  other  animal.  Since 
the  announcement  of  the  theory,  all  real  scientific  knowledge 
has  proceeded  in  the  opposite  direction.”  Subsequently,  at  a 
convention  of  anthropologists  in  Vienna,  Virchow  confirmed 
what  he  previously  had  said,  in  these  words :  ‘‘  The  attempt 
to  find  the  transition  from  animal  to  man  has  ended  in  total 
failure.  The  middle  link  has  not  been  found  and  never  will  be. 
It  has  been  proved  beyond  doubt  that  during  the  past  five 
thousand  years  there  has  been  nO'  noticeable  change  in  man¬ 
kind.”  And  what  seems  rather  severe,  though  in  keeping  with 
our  theme,  Virchow,  in  speaking  of  certain  clubs  or  circles  of 
evolutionists,  called  them  “  bubble  companies.” 

In  a  recent  number  of  Bezueis  des  Glaubens,  Professor 
Zoeckler,  of  the  University  of  Greifswald,  employs  these 
words :  “  The  claim  that  the  hypothesis  of  descent  is  secured 
scientifically  must  most  decidedly  be  denied.  Neither  Hart¬ 
mann’s  exposition  nor  the  authorities  he  cites  have  the  force 

50 


even  of  moral  conviction  for  the  claim  for  purely  mechanicjil 
descent.  The  descent  of  organisms  is  not  a  scientifically 
demonstrated  proposition.” 

Professor  Fleischmann,  of  Erlangen,  one  of  the  several 
recent  converts  to  anti-Darwinism,  in  a  book  just  published 
in  Leipsic,  Die  Danviiis  cJic  Thcoric,  reaches  this  conclusion: 

The  Darwinian  theory  of  descent  has  in  the  realms  of  nature 
not  a  single  fact  to  confirm  it.  It  is  not  the  result  of  scientific 
research,  but  purely  the  product  of  the  imagination.” 

The  most  suggestive  words,  however,  and  really  the  severest 
criticism  on  evolution,  though  not  spoken  with  that  intent,  are 
from  Professor;  Ernst  Haeckel,  of  Jena,  Germany’s  greatest 
Ijiologist,  and  the  rankest  naturalistic  evolutionist  of  recent 
date.  In  his  latest  utterances  he  bewails  the  fact  that  he  is 
standing  almost  alone.  ‘‘  Most  modern  investigators  of  science 
have  come  to  the  conclusion,”  he  says,  “  that  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  and  particularly  Darwinism  is  an  error  and  cannot 
be  maintained.”  Then  he  enumerates  several  distinguished 
men,  whom  he  calls  “  bold  and  talented  scientists,”  who,  not 
long  since,  were  advocates  of  evolution  but  who  lately  have 
abandoned  it.  The  men  he  mentions  are  Dr.  E.  Dennert, 
author  of  Voin  Stcrhclalager  dcs  Darwinisunis  (1903);  Dr. 
Goette,  the  Strasburg  professor  whose  articles  have  appeared 
in  the  Unchau  (1903)  ;  Professor  Edward  Hoppe,  known  as 
”  the  Hamburg  Savant,”  who  in  his  recent  pamphlets  takes  a 
pronounced  position,  in  the  name  of  religion,  against  natural¬ 
istic  evolution;  Professor  Paulson,  of  Berlin,  who,  among  his 
other  criticisms  of  evolution,  has  recently  declared  that 
Haeckel’s  theory  is  a  disgrace  to  the  philosophy  of  Ger¬ 
many  ” ;  Professor  Rutemeyer,  geologist  and  paleontologist, 
of  Basel,  who  charges  evolutionists,  especially  of  the  Haeckel 
type,  with  ‘‘  playing  false  with  the  public  and  with  the  natural 
sciences”;  and  Professor  Wilhelm  Max  Wundt,  of  Eeipsic, 

51 


who  stands  at  the  head  of  (jennaii  psychologists,  who  wrote 
books  in  his  earlier  days  in  support  of  evolution,  but  w'ho  in 
a  late  publication  characterizes  those  early  writings  as  “  the 
great  crime  of  his  youth  that  wall  take  him  all  the  rest  of  his 
life  to  ex])iate  ”  ;  “  and  so,”  adds  Haeckel,  he  is  now  writing 
the  other  thing.” 

Such  are  the  men  over  whom  Haeckel  is  weeping  because 
they  have  deserted  not  Darwinism  in  particular  but  evolution, 
and  have  gone  back,  as  he  w'ould  say,  to  the  weak  and  beggarly 
elements  of  supernaturalism. 

An  interesting  discussion  of  late  has  been  going  on  in  Ger¬ 
many  bet\veen  Professor  Robert  Eduard  von  Hartmann,  the 
distinguished  anti-Christian  philosopher,  of  Berlin,  and  others, 
some  of  whom  were  classed  only  a  few  years  ago  among  evo¬ 
lutionists,  but  have  since  gone,  almost  in  a  body,  over  to  the 
ranks  of  the  anti-evolutionists. 

Hartmann  had  published  his  rather  conservative  views  in 
these  words:  “The  theorv  of  descent  is  safe  but  Darwinism 
has  been  weighed  and  found  wanting.  Selection  cannot  in 
general  achieve  any  positive  results,  but  only  negative  effects: 
the  origin  of  species  by  minimal  changes  is  possible,  but  has 
not  been  demonstrated.” 

His  statements  that  the  “  origin  of  species  by  minimal 
changes  is  possible  ”  and  that  “  thus  far  the  theory  of  descent 
is  safe  ”  have  brought  out  a  small  army  of  scholars  and 
scientists  who  vigorously  oppose  Hartmann’s  naturalistic  pos¬ 
sibilities,  and  whoi  are  taking  the  position  held  by  those 
eminent  English  and  French  scientists  wdio  believe  in  special 
creation.  These  recent  recruits  are  such  men  as  Eimer,  Gustav 
Wolf,  De  Vries,  Hoocke,  von  Wellstein,  Fleischmann  and 
Reinke.* 

Now  the  surprising  thing,  notwithstanding  these  facts,  is 
iliat  American  university  professors,  on  the  lecture  platform. 


assure  the  people  that  “  evolution  is  accepted  by  all  scientists,*’ 
and  that  “  those  who  oppose  it  are  not  familiar  with  either 
the  evolution  hypothesis  or  the  facts  of  natural  history." 
Were  these  professors  clergymen  would  it  be  discourteous  to 
characterize  such  an  exhibition  as  a  piece  of  superb  ignorance 
or  insolence? 

And  if  these  facts  as  to  the  attitude  of  leading  scientists, 
and  if  this  revolution  of  opinion  in  Germany  are  known,  and 
certainly  they  ought  to  be,  then  can  the  silence  of  our  American 
evolutionists  be  looked  upon  as  honest  and  manly?  So  far 
as  anything  can  be  gathered  from  what  these  men  are  saying, 
one  would  not  know  that  there  is  an  eminent  anti-evolutionist 
anywhere  in  Christendom. 

VIII. 

BIBLE  CRITICISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 

1.  Destructive  Intentions  oe  Modern  Bible  Critics. 
—  A  recent  announcement  of  what  higher  criticism  proposes 
to  do  under  the  guidance  of  evolution  is  from  the  pen  of  one 
of  its  advocates :  “  \W  intend.  First,  to  reconstruct  Bible  his¬ 
tory  in  harmony  with  the  theory  of  evolution.  Second,  to 
eliminate  by  this  process  all  that  is  supernatural  in  the  record. 
Third,  to  unite  scholars  in  support  of  sweeping  changes  in  the 
orthodox  view  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.” 

What  trumpery!  ‘‘We  intend  to  reconstruct  Bible  history 
in  harmony  with  the  theory  of  evolution', *'  —  a  theory  discred¬ 
ited  and  abandoned  by  the  best  scholarship  of  the  world! 
One  gets  thoroughly  out  of  patience  with  the  conceit  and  pre¬ 
tence  of  these  belated  higher  and  destructive  critics. 

2.  Rejoinder  by  Professor  A.  H.  Sayce  of  Oxford.  — 
'Phis  matter  is  admirably  put  by  Dr.  A.  H.  Sayce,  professor 
of  Assyriology  in  the  university  of  Oxford,  who.  besides  being 


one  of  the  world’s  ablest  archaeologists,  takes  rank  in  Bible 
studies  with  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of  recent  date: 

The  whole  application  of  the  supposed  law  of  evolution  to 
the  religious  and  secular  history  of  the  ancient  world  is 
founded  on  what  we  know  to  have  been  a  huge  mistake.  The 
actual  condition  of  the  oriental  world  in  the  age  of  Moses, 
as  it  has  been  revealed  to  us  by  archaeology,  leaves  little  room 
for  the  particular  kind  of  evolution  of  which  higher  criticism 
has  dreamed.  But  in  truth  the  archaeological  discoveries  of 
the  last  dozen  years  in  Egypt  and  Crete  have  once  for  all 
discredited  the  claim  of  ‘  criticism  ’  to  apply  its  theories  of 
development  to  the  settlement  of  chronological  or  historical 
questions.  The  scepticism  of  the  critic  has  been  proved  to 
have  been  but  the  measure  of  his  own  ignorance,  and  the  want 
of  evidence  to  have  been  merely  his  own  ignorance  of  it.  The 
spade  of  the  excavator  in  Crete  has  effected  more  in  three  or 
four  years  than  the  labors  and  canons  of  the  ‘  critic  ’  in  half 
a  century.  The  whole  fabric  he  had  raised  has  gone  down 
like  a  house  of  cards  and  with  it  the  theories  of  development 
of  which  he  felt  so  confident.^” 

If,  therefore,  higher  critics  have  not  lost  their  wits  com¬ 
pletely,  they  will  henceforth  hesitate  in  the  presence  of  think¬ 
ing  people  to  make  use  of  this  defunct  theory  in  their 
discussions  of  Biblical  criticism,  religious  faith,  and  systems 
of  ethics. 


X. 

RELIGION  AND  EVOLUTION. 

I.  Outcome  oe  Darwinism.  —  There  remains  one  other 
point  of  view,  the  ethical  and  religious.  First  of  all  there 
should  be  an  acknowledgment  of  indebtedness  to  evolutionists, 
beginning  especially  with  Mr.  Darwin,  for  a  vast  amount  of 

54 


information  and  for  awakening  general  interest  in  the  study 
of  nature’s  phenomena.  And  the  discredit,  almost  disrespect, 
now  heaped  upon  Mr.  Darwin’s  scheme  awakens  one’s  ortho¬ 
dox  pity,  especially  when  recalling  the  imperial  sway  his 
hypothesis  held  for  years  over  a  world  of  scholars. 

But  now,  after  only  twenty-three  years  have  passed,  rever¬ 
ence,  even  by  the  poorest  of  our  scientists,  is  no  longer  shown 
the  once  famous  man’s  theory,  and  every  leading  naturalist 
is  echoing  the  words  of  one  of  the  most  accomplished  natural¬ 
ists  in  Great  Britain,  St.  George  Mivart :  “  I  cannot  call  it 
(Darwin’s  theory)  anything  but  a  puerile  hypothesis.”  And 
yet  even  this  dirge  is  far  from  being  the  saddest  feature  of 
Mr.  Darwin’s  funeral,  for  his  hypothesis  not  only  paved  the 
way  for  making  every  kind  of  assault  upon  the  Christian 
religion,  but  destroyed  his  own  early  faith,  leaving  him  at 
last  in  mazes  of  doubt  and  disappointment. 

The  mischievous  tendencies  of  his  teaching  were  pointed 
out  on  the  year  of  his  death,  ini  a  country  (France)  where 
least  expected.  UUnivers  (1882)  published  the  following 
severe  criticism  upon  Mr.  Darwin  at  the  very  time  a  wellnigh 
universal  and  certainly  extravagant  homage  was  being  paid 
him :  — 

“  When  hypotheses  tend  to  nothing  less  than  the  shutting 
out  of  God  from  the  thoughts  and  hearts  of  men  and  the  dif¬ 
fusion  of  the  leprosy  of  materialism  the  savant  whO’  invents 
and  propagates  them  is  either  a  criminal  or  a  fool.” 

Herbert  Spencer,  toO',  has  suffered  scarcely  less  in  post¬ 
mortem  judgment  than  Mr.  Darwin.  In  his  unification  of 
knowledge  he  found  no  place  for  God  in  the  universe,  and 
already  the  day  of  retribution  has  come ;  those  who  are  masters 
of  scientific  processes  and  are  capable  of  broad  generalizations 
almost  to  a  man  have  pronounced  their  condemnation  upon 
the  scientific  pretensions  of  Mr.  Spencer. 

55 


2.  Rkcknt  Evolution  and  Rluioion.  —  But  the  point  we 
are  making  is  this,  that  there  is  every  reason  for  thinking  that 
our  later  evolutionists  who  have  abandoned  Mr.  Darwin  and 
Spencer,  and  are  now  offering  to  the  world  a  new  scheme  of 
naturalism,  will  be  overtaken  by  a  doom  no  less  utter  than  that 
which  has  befallen  these  distinguished  predecessors.  What 
else  could  be  expected  ?  Any  theory  that  tends  to  dethrone 
(jod,  elevate  monkeys  and  degrade  men  (every  scheme  of 
evolution  points  that  way)  is  sure,  if  followed,  to  end  in  dis¬ 
aster.  Supernatural  evolution  as  now  taught,  no  less  than 
naturalistic,  antagonizes  traditional  Christianity.  Bible  cos¬ 
mogony  never  can  be  harmonized  with  any  possible  theory  of 
evolution.  This  late  “  hybrid  product  ”  that  contends  for  the 
creation  of  a  few  germs  and  from  them  the  evolution  of  the 
world's  flora  and  fauna  is  neither  Biblical  nor  scientific.  What 
hope,  therefore,  for  it  or  for  those  who  advocate  it?  Scientists 
and  theologians  of  the  new  school  already  have  parted  com¬ 
pany  with  nearly  every  phase  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  are 
leading  their  followers  where  no  anchorage  nor  peace  can  be 
found.  An  undenominational  paper  recently  has  put  the 
matter  thus :  — 

“  Not  only  have  these  men  abandoned  faith  in  the  super¬ 
natural,  but  they  have  sown  the  seed  of  unbelief  in  thousands 
of  hearts,  so  that  it  is  even  now  getting  to  sound  somewhat 
old-fashioned  to  assert  belief  in  the  supernatural.  They  have 
presumed  to  apply  even  to  the  infinite  God  Himself  the  puny 
measuring-rod  of  their  scientific  dicta,  and  demand  proof  of 
the  supernatural  where  the  very  nature  of  that  proof  is  itself 
denied.  The  very  essence  of  religion  is  sublimized  into  airy 
nothingness  by  these  intellectual  iconoclasts,  and  yet  they  are 
received  into  the  bosom  of  the  church  which  claims  to  be  above 
all  others  the  residuary  legatee  of  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints." 


56 


It  cannot  be  otherwise  than  fatally  disastrous  when  specu¬ 
lation  is  substituted  for  revelation,  and  evolution  for  creation ; 
V  hen  the  immanence  of  God  takes  the  place  of  his  transcen¬ 
dence;  when  the  Bible  is  treated  as  the  record  merely  of  the 
development  of  the  religious  ideas  of  the  people  of  Israel, 
instead  of  being  the  inspired  word  of  God ;  when  everything 
supernatural  is  eliminated  from  the  birth,  life  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  and  he  is  classed  simply  as  a  high  and  unusual 
development  of  humanity;  when  conversion  and  regenera¬ 
tion  are  spoken  of  as  evolutions  in  life  and  character  instead 
of  being  a  revolution  of  man’s  spiritual  nature.  Under  these 
destructive  teachings  the  world  may  continue  to  mark  time, 
but  in  matters  most  vital  to  human  interests  and  happiness 
there  will  be  an  end  of  all  progress.  And  if  the  day  ever  comes 
when  these  so-called  advanced  views  in  science  and  religion 
generally  shall  prevail,  theological  schools  will  have  no 
students,  and  why  should  they?  Christian  churches  will  be 
emptied  of  hearers,  and  why  should  they  not?  The  command, 

Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel,”  will  lose 
its  authority,  and  why  should  it  not,  if  Christ  is  only  human  ? 
Mission  fields  will  be  abandoned,  family  worship  will  be 
silenced,  the  consolations  and  inspirations  of  Christian  faith 
will  no  longer  be  felt  in  the  hearts  and  homes  of  men.  Such 
will  be  the  inevitable  and  woeful  fruitage  of  an  evolution  and 
theology  that  does  away  with  the  essential  doctrines  of  the 
early  Christian  faith. 

In  1900,  on  the  assembling  of  the  International  Peace 
Congress  in  Paris,  VUnivers  published  these  forceful  and 
significant  words :  — 

The  spirit  of  peace  has  fled  the  earth  because  evolution 
has  taken  possession  of  it.  The  plea  for  peace  in  past  years 
has  been  inspired  by  faith  in  the  divine  nature  and  in  the  divine 
origin  of  man;  men  were  then  looked  upon  as  children  of 

57 


one  Father  and  war,  therefore,  was  fratricide.  But  now  that 
men  are  looked  upon  as  children  of  apes,  what  matters  it 
whether  they  are  slaughtered  or  not  !  ” 

Well  is  it  for  the  world,  however,  that  amid  this  dangerous 
drift  of  modern  speculative  science  and  theology  the  hearts 
of  those  who  know  what  and  whom  they  have  believed  are 
held  to  the  ancient  faith  with  cables  stronger  than  steel. 
Advocates  of  these  new,  rather  revived  theories,  ought  to 
know  that  this  faith,  as  interpreted  by  Christian  consciousness, 
stands  not  in  the  breath  of  any  given  generation.  It  is  inde¬ 
pendent  of  accidents,  incidents,  of  anything  historic  or  tran¬ 
sitory. 

This  primitive  faith  is  like  the  productions  by  Michael 
Angelo,  Raphael,  Mozart,  and  Beethoven,  old  but  new.  The 
beauty  of  a  mild  sunset,  the  sublimity  of  a  midnight  heaven, 
the  dazzle  of  lightnings  playing  across  the  sky,  the  repose  of 
a  lily  clad  in  raiment  surpassing  that  of  any  present  or  future 
vSolomon,  have  been  repeated  for  millions  of  years,  but  they 
will  never  be  outgrown  though  society  should  exist  in  a  state 
of  constant  progress  for  ten  thousand  years. 

And  thus  the  primitive  faith  of  Christendom  will  endure, 
because  it  is  a  revelation  from  heaven ;  because  the  more  it  is 
studied  and  experienced  the  more  highly  it  is  prized ;  because 
the  path  it  opens  is  one  of  elevation,  emancipation,  knowledge, 
peace  and  salvation;  because  it  gives  strength  to  the  weak, 
hope  to  the  discouraged  and  stimulus  to  the  sluggish ;  because 
it  promises  reward  to  the  good  and  pardon  to  the  penitent, 
though  holding  threats  of  woe  over  those  who  do  not  repent ; 
because  it  can  enter  all  dark  places  and  leave  them  full  of 
light;  because  it  can  satisfy  all  desires  that  human  want 
awakens;  because  it  can  stand  by  the  bedside  of  the  dying, 
quell  every  misgiving,  wipe  away  the  death-sweat,  and  leave 
the  brow  calm  and  serene  as  heaven;  and  because  it  places 

58 


before  the  human  soul  inducements  for  leading  a  better  life 
and  for  engaging  in  those  philanthropies  whose  object  is  to 
save  mankind  from  distress  and  despair,  —  inducements  that 
evolution  and  the  new  theology  never  can  offer  or  make 
effective;  inducements  that  have  given  to  the  world  the  most 
splendid  types  of  manhood  that  have  adorned  the  pages  of  the 
world’s  history  —  these  are  the  reasons  why  the  faith  of  ihe 
fathers  will  be  found  standing  and  undisturbed  when  every 
theory  opposed  to  it,  or  that  deviates  from  it,  shall  be  both 
dishonored  and  forgotten.  The  foundations  of  this  faith  are 
impregnable.  Its  fortified  home  is  in  the  wants  and  depths 
of  human  souls.  And  human  nature,  in  her  better  moments 
and  conditions,  will  endow  it  with  her  last  dollar,  and  will 
defend  it  with  her  last  strength.  Evolution  and  its  new  the¬ 
ology  may  bring  into  play  every  piece  of  their  artillery  —  the 
Alps  remain. 


IX. 

CONCLUSION. 

As  a  result  of  these  investigations  there  are  before  us  the 
following  facts  :  —  The  failure  of  evolutionists  tO'  establish  the 
claim  that  original  life-germs  came  into  existence  by  natural 
processes;  their  inability  to  show  that,  in  the  world  of  living 
things,  there  exists  a  law  of  development  and  improvement  ; 
the  complete  breakdown  of  their  claim  that,  by  natural  proc¬ 
esses,  lower  species  of  plants  and  animals  may  be  transmuted 
into  higher ;  the  fact  that  in  all  early  and  late  excavations  and 
researches  not  one  connecting  link  between  any  of  the  mil¬ 
lions  of  different  species  has  been  found ;  the  fact  that  mental 
science  and  all  the  physical  sciences  have  not  yet  discovered 
a  particle  of  evidence  showing,  or  even  suggesting,  that  any 
animal  ever  has  reached  or  ever  can  reach  a  point  where, 

59 


slowly  or  suddenly,  il  can  come  into  possession  of  a  hnnian 
sold,  a  human  mind,  or  a  human  body ;  the  fact  that  biologists, 
geologists  and  archaeologists  have  overwdielmingly  silenced 
the  assertion  that  the  human  race  began  low  down  and 
through  countless  ages  has  worked  itself  up  to  its  present  civ¬ 
ilized  state;  the  downfall  of  the  scarecrow  and  utterly  false 
though  continually  repeated  assertion  that  scholarly  men,  men 
of  science  and  the  world’s  great  philosophers  are  all  evolu¬ 
tionists;  the  recent  abandonment  of  evolution  by  those  who 
once  held  the  theory  and  who  at  the  present  moment  are  mak- 
ing  vigorous  assaults  upon  it;  the  absolute  incompetence  of 
evolutionists  and  of  “  advanced  theologians  ”  to  formulate  any 
system  of  ethics  or  religion  that  at  all  approaches  those  made 
known  by  ancient  Jewish  prophets  and  New  Testament  evange¬ 
lists —  in  view,  therefore,  of  this  majestic  array  of  facts,  need 
there  be  a  moment’s  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution,  together  with  all  other  speculations  so  far  as  they 
are  attached  to  it,  new  theology,  higher  and  destructive  criti¬ 
cism  included,  has  collapsed  beyond  any  hope  of  restoration? 


6o 


NOTES. 


I.  (Page  9.) 

Suborganic  evolution,  treating  of  the  formation  of  worlds;  organic 
evolution,  treating  of  things  having  life,  and  superorganic  evolution,  hav¬ 
ing  to  do  with  the  constitution  and  operations  of  mind,  are  terms  now  in 
use,  hut  the  present  discussion  is  confined  chiefly  to  organic  evolution. 

II.  (Page  12.) 

The  story  of  Professor  Huxley’s  protoplasm,  since  called  ‘‘the  hathy- 
hius  delusion,”  is  interesting  and  ought  to  he  instructive  if  not  a  warning 
to  our  speculative  evolutionists. 

Professor  Huxley  claimed  that  he  had  discovered  the  substratum  of 
all  life,  which  he  believed  covered  the  whole  bed  of  the  world’s  oceans. 
The  discovery  was  hailed'  with  enthusiasm  in  almost  every  scientific  circle. 
By  casting  into  the  ocean  a  deep-water  dredge  any  one  could  draw  up  a 
muddy  substance  from  which  all  living  things,  including  Adam  and  Eve, 
have  been  evolved. 

Mr.  Huxley’s  confession  of  faith  was  this:  —  “Protoplasm  is  the 
origin  of  all  life  ...  it  is  a  molecular  machine,  all-powerful  and  all-sufifi- 
cient.” 

The  Challenger,  a  vessel  sent  out  by  the  United  States  Government 
to  make  deep-sea  soundings,  with  Professor  Murray,  the  scientist,  on 
hoard,  was  commissioned  to  secure  with  other  things  some  of  this  sub- 
oceanic  ooze  or  mud.  A  quantity  was  gathered  sufficient  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  mistake,  carefully  preserved  and  brought  home.  But  in  his 
experiments  with  it  the  professor  discovered  that  sea  water  and  alcohol 
mingled  gave  a  flocculent  precipitate  which,  separated  from  the  liquid,  was 
identical  with  Huxley’s  protoplasm. 

He  showed  the  experiment  to  Professor  Huxley  and  the  delusion 
vanished.  The  all-powerful  and  all-sufficient  protoplasm  was  merely  a 
precipitated  sulphate,  which  any  chemist  can  make  for  himself. 

It  was  a  rude  shock  to  the  complacent  materialistic  biologist, 
who  had  built  extended  theoretical  edifices  and  written  learned  treat¬ 
ises  on  the  wonders  of  this  protoplasm  found  on  the  sea  bottom. 

III.  (Page  20.) 

Should  our  readers  desire  to  pursue  this  line  of  thought  further  they 
will  find  interesting  facts  in  a  treatise  on  “  Degeneration  ”  by  Dr.  Dohon. 
of  Naples,  and  in  another,  on  the  same  subject,  by  Edwin  Ray  Lankester. 
professor  of  comparative  anatomy,  Oxford. 

61 


IV.  (Page  23.) 

The  following  instance  showing  the  changes  that  have  taken  place  in 
geological  science  is  vouched  for  by  the  eminent  geologist,  Professor 
Charles  Lyell.  “In  the  year  1806,”  he  says,  “the  French  Institute  enu¬ 
merated  not  less  than  eighty  geological  theories  which  were  hostile  to  the 
Scriptures;  but  not  one  of  those  theories  is  held  to-day.” 

V.  (Page  34-) 

A  fuller  discussion  of  this  point  may  be  found  in  the  Geological 
Magazine,  London,  Jan.,  1905. 

VI.  (Page  36.) 

In  one  of  the  earliest  editions  of  the  “  Descent  of  Man  ”  Mr.  Darwin 
thus  describes  the  primitive  human  race :  — 

“  The  early  progenitors  of  man  were,  no  doubt,  covered  with  hair, 
both  sexes  having  beards.  Their  ears  were  pointed  and  capable  of  move¬ 
ment,  and  their  bodies  were  provided  with  a  tail.  .  .  .  The  foot  .  .  .  was 
prehensile  and  our  progenitors,  no  doubt,  were  arboreal  in  their  habits, 
frequenting  some  warm,  forest-clad  land.  ...  At  an  earlier  period  the 
progenitors  of  man  must  have  been  aquatic  in  their  habits.” 

In  justice  to  Mr.  Darwin,  however,  it  should  be  said  that  he  was  wise 
enough  to  expunge  this  and  some  other  unscientific  speculations  from  the 
later  editions  of  his  works. 

VII.  (Page  43.) 

Professor  Winchelhs  words  as  to  the  recent  chaos  of  the  ice  age  will 
seem  entirely  reasonable  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  waning  glaciers  of 
the  Pleistocene  era  are  still  found  in  many  quarters  of  the  globe.  British 
Columbia  abounds  with  them. 

In  this  note  attention  is  also  called  to  the  fact  that  some  of  our  glaci¬ 
ologists  and  paleontologists  have  thought  that  human  remains  found  in 
the  later  glacial  times,  notably  those  in  the  Delaware  deposits,  furnish 
evidence  of  man’s  great  antiquity.  But  no  one  now  insists  that  these  fos¬ 
sils  are  pre-glacial,  if  the  climax  of  that  age  is  meant. 

The  later  glaciations,  though  holding  New  England  in  their  grip,  left 
no  marks  of  their  presence  in  Maryland,  few  in  Pennsylvania,  none  in 
Virginia,  Kentucky,  Tennessee  nor  Missouri;  they  probably  belong  to  the 
close  of  what  Professor  W.  L.  Elkin,  of  Yale,  calls  the  astronomical  winter 
of  ten  thousand  five  hundred  years  ago,  when  the  annual  winters  were 
longer  and  colder  than  now,  and  when  the  summers  were  shorter  and 
hotter.  It  is  not  improbable  that  bold  navigators  from  Tyre,  or  from 
some  European  or  African  port  crossed!  the  Atlantic  and,  following  the 
icy  shores  of  New  England,  landed  in  the  Delaware  Bay  and  perished  on 
those  shores  with  the  coming  of  the  severe  winter  seasons  of  those  prim¬ 
itive  times.  Or  colonies  coming  from  old  Mexico,  Yucatan  or  Central 
America,  where  are  many  evidences  of  the  earliest  civilization  on  this 
continent,  one  that  appears  to  be  of  Asiatic  origin,  and  on  reaching  the  Dela¬ 
ware  glaciers,  may  have  been  overtaken  by  one  of  those  winters  of  the 

62 


later  ice  age,  and  perished,  as  do  the  modern  Arctic  explorers  sometimes, 
before  a  retreat  could  be  made. 

At  least,  judging  from  a  large  number  of  facts,  it  is  quite  certain  that 
the  human  fossils  in  the  Delaware  deposits  are  not  those  of  men  who  came 
from  the  northwest,  as  did  the  later  immigrants.  Professor  Holmes  has 
clearly  shown  this  in  the  following  statements :  —  “The  great  ice  sheet  of 
the  glacial  epoch  spread  itself  over  the  northern  part  of  Asia  and  America 
300,000  years  ago,  and  was  not  withdrawn  until  10,000  years  ago,”  approxi- 
niately.  The  ice  sheet  covered  Wisconsin  10,000  years  ago  and  glacial 
ice  was  everywhere  in  our  northern  and  western  states.  It  would  seem  to 
have  been  impossible,  therefore,  for  primitive  human  beings,  without  houses 
or  means  of  keeping  themselves  warm,  to  make  the  journey  by  way  of 
Behring  Strait  and  down  the  Pacific  coast  to  warmer  latitudes.” 

VIII.  (Page  45-) 

Adopting  the  theory  of  supernatural  creation  as  revealed  in  the  Bible, 
and  admitting  the  attainments,  and  especially  the  mechanical  skill,  of  the 
immediate  descendants  of  Adam  (Gen.  ii,  19;  iv,  17,  21,  22),  difficulties 
as  to  the  early  and  rapid  civilization  of  Babylon  and  Egypt  disappear. 

IX.  (Page  52.) 

Hartmann’s  history  of  Darwinism  is  discriminating.  Under  the  title, 
“  The  Passing  of  Darwinism,”  Hartmann  gives  an  outline  of  the  history  of 
evolution.  After  tracing  its  career,  beginning  in  the  sixties,  and  passing 
through  the  seventies  and  eighties,  he  says :  —  “In  the  nineties,  for  the 
first  time,  a  few  timid  expressions  of  doubt  andi  opposition  were  heard, 
but  these  gradually  swelled  into  a  great  chorus  of  voices,  aiming  at  the 
overthrow  of  the  Darwinian  theory.  In  the  first  decade  of  the  twentieth 
century  it  has  become  apparent  that  the  days  of  Darwinism  are  numbered.” 

X.  (Page  54-) 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  M.  Halevy,  the  distinguished  Orientalist, 
who  outdistances  even  the  ablest  German  Assyriologists,  not  only  stands 
by  Professor  Sayce,  but  has  spoken  words  that  ought  to  hold  in  check  our 
American  theological  professors  and  clergymen  who  have  been  in  haste 
to  worship  at  the  shrine  of  destructive  criticism.  The  case  is  this,  — 

When  the  younger  Delitzsch  gave  his  lecture  on  Babel  and  Bible, 
and  when  our  secular,  and,  in  many  instances,  our  religious,  press,  and 
perhaps  the  larger  number  of  our  theological  schools,  surrendered  with¬ 
out  firing  a  gun  (perhaps  they  had  no  desire  to  fire  one),  it  was  M. 
Halevy  who  made  the  earliest  and  perhaps  the  keenest  reply  tO'  the  some¬ 
what  arrogant  and  unsupported  assertions  of  Delitzsch. 

After  saying  a  few  words  complimentary  of  the  address,  as  Is  the 
way  of  a  cultivated  Frenchman,  M.  Halevy  then  charges  him  with  a 
“  predisposition  to  rest  content  with  only  superficial  appearances  ”  and 
adds :  —  “  Sincerity  compels  me  to  point  out  certain  inapt,  inaccurate  and 
redundant  statements  that  disfigure  the  whole  lecture.”  And  this  is  done 
to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  friends  of  the  Bible. 

63 


ANNOUNCEMENT 


“  Collapse  of  Evolution  ’’  will  be  found  aggressive  and  only  incidentiilly 
apologetic. 

The  author’s  other  writings,  for  the  larger  part,  have  been  in  defence  of 
tlse  primitive  Christian  faith. 

His  publications  of  recent  date  that  discuss  questions  now  of  special  inter¬ 
est  are,  “  Evolution  or  Creation,”  318  pages,  sold  at  .75 ;  “  Story  of  Jonah 
and  Higher  Criticism,”  119  pages,  .25;  “Satan  and  Demons,”  131  pages, 
.25 ;  “  God’s  Goodness  and  Severity,”  165  pages,  .25 ;  “  Adam  and  Eve : 
History  or  Myth,”  130  pages,  paper  cover,  .25;  cloth,  .50. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  Professor  Townsend’s  other  books:  — 

Credo  (444  pages),  Lost  Forever  (448  pages),  Arena  and  Throne  (264 
pages),  God-Man  (446  pages),  Intermediate  World,  Sword  and 
Garment  (238  pages).  Supernatural  Factor  in  Revivals  (31 1  pages), 
and  Fate  of  Republics  (297  pages),  .60  per  volume, 

Bible  Theology  and  Modern  Thought  (332  pages),  .50.  Art  of  Speech, 
two  vols.,  .40  each. 

Faith  Work,  Christian  Science  and  Other  Cures,  .30. 

The  Bible  and  other  Ancient  Literature  (205  pages),  .25. 

What  Noted  Men  Think  of  the  Bible  and  What  Noted  Men  Think  of 
Christ,  .10  each. 

These  books  can  be  ordered  after  May  i,  1905,  through  the  American 
Bible  League,  82  Bible  House,  New  York. 

American  Bible  League  is  an  organization  for  the  banding  together 
of  ”  the  friends  of  the  Bible,  to  promote  a  more  thorough  reverential  and 
constructive  study  of  the  Sacred  volume,  and  to  maintain  the  historic  faith 
of  the  Church  in  its  divine  inspiration  and  supreme  authority  as  the  Word 
of  God.” 

The  Bible  Student  and  Teacher  is  the  organ  of  the  Bible  League, 
containing  nearly  a  thousand  pages.  Among  its  contributors  are  some  of 
the  ablest  men  in  the  United  States  and  Europe.  One  dollar  per  year 
secures  membership  in  the  League  and  the  Magazine. 

Address  AMERICAN  BIBLE  LEAGUE, 

82  Bible  House,  New  York. 


64 


A  fi<V  ^r  1'  ’‘I'^^'-l/  ) 


rJl  r^  "'^,V‘’.'i  .  i  ^\' 

,^'H  "  'i'  /'I  -  ^ 

' '/I'-'*  * ‘7¥a'  , 


